“Knowledge Studies” Jay H. Bernstein Kingsborough Community College Faculty Forum November 20, 2013

The meaning of “knowledge” is elusive…

…since it is not a “thing”

Epistemology (philosophical theory of knowledge) Studies the features of knowledge in absolute terms Asks what the criteria and conditions of knowledge are Concern for truth, factuality, verifiability Belief is not knowledge unless it is true and justified Analytical methods, often involving hypothetical situations

Sociology of knowledge Knowledge is studied empirically as it is used, shared, created, stored, developed, etc., without concern for referential status or truth- value Knowledge is a social fact that need not be defined ontologically or metaphysically Concerned with expertise, ideology, transmission of ideas, knowledge in relation to power and prestige

Knowledge management Knowledge results from the processing of information Knowledge is an asset that can be managed Tacit knowledge should be explicated and shared among team members for the benefit of the firm and its stakeholders Knowledge is a means to an end rather than a good in itself – Curiosity and the spirit of free inquiry are not accounted for

Transdisciplinarity Problem based research Aims to integrate knowledge holistically by moving beyond the limitations inherent in disciplinary segmentation Different from interdisciplinary work (collaboration between researchers from different disciplines) or multidisciplinary work (collected inputs from different disciplines without synthesis) Includes academic and nonacademic settings, brings in people being studied as participants on an equal footing as investigators Often aimed at creating socially responsible science – Topics include complex problems (including complexity itself) as well as sustainability, peace and conflict, climate change, nanotechnology

Fritz Machlup ( )

Machlup’s background Ph.D. in economics Univ. of Vienna, 1923 (age 21) Worked in industry before going into academia in 1929 Emigrated to USA in 1933 Distinguished career as an economist – Consultant to U.S. Treasury and professor at Buffalo, Northwestern, Princeton, and NYU, among others

Machlup’s books on knowledge The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States (1962) Information Through the Printed Word: The Dissemination of Scholarly, Scientific, and Intellectual Knowledge (4 vols.) (1978) Knowledge: Its Creation, Distribution, and Economic Significance 1. Knowledge and Knowledge Production, The Branches of Learning, The Economics of Information and Human Capital, 1984 (posthumous) The Study of Information: Interdisciplinary Messages (ed. with Una Mansfield), 1983 (posthumous)

Machlup’s Five Categories of Knowledge Practical knowledge Intellectual knowledge Smalltalk and pastime knowledge Spiritual knowledge Unwanted knowledge

Michael Polanyi ( )

Polanyi’s background Medical diploma (1913) followed by Ph.D. in physical chemistry (1919), Univ. of Budapest Employed as a physical chemist in Berlin beginning in 1920, then became a scientist at Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Physical Chemistry in Berlin in 1923, but resigned in protest of Nazis in 1933 Chair of Physical Chemistry, Univ. of Manchester, 1933 Job title changed to Professor of Social Science 1948 – Wrote about employment before turning attention to the philosophy of science and knowledge Gifford Lectures at Univ. of Aberdeen were the basis of his 1958 magnum opus Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-critical Philosophy. This was followed by other books on knowledge

Polanyi’s approach Begins with the outlook of the individual inquirer or learner Focuses on engaged inquiry: how people pursue knowledge through inquiry and discovery Prioritizes the interests, motives, and thought paths of the knower Recognizes the roles of emotions and commitment

Questions moving forward Is knowledge the same thing now as it was in the past? Do traditional practices of reading and inquiry have a future? Can they be salvaged or improved on? Disciplinary organization of knowledge a research problem Is a meaningful dialogue possible between the “establishment” and “radical” wings of knowledge studies?