The Nature of Knowledge and its Quality

Knowledge is having different aspects to follow and these factors are having the influence in determining its quality. In the recent time, there are number of arguments and counter-arguments being emerged about how to measure the quality of knowledge. One of the major claims for measuring the quality of knowledge is how many people accepting it. This refers to the fact that the more people will accept a particular knowledge, the more will be its quality. On the other hand, there are number of counter claims also being given by different authors. In this essay, both the claims and counter claims will be discussed based on the real world situations and from the perspective of two areas of knowledge. There are number of factors such as arts, ethics, history and religion are having impact on determining the quality of the knowledge.

One of the major areas of knowledge is the arts. This refers to the process of social criticism and engagement. In determining the topic question, it is important due to the reason that arts also include language, which determines the extent to which the particular knowledge is penetrated among the audience. Language plays an important role in this case due to the reason that there are number of languages being practiced across the world and adherence of the audience with a particular language will determine the extent to which the knowledge will be accepted by the people. As stated by Hughes, if the particular knowledge is having different language element other than what the target audience practices, then the level of acceptance for it will be lower and this will have negative impact on the knowledge. This is due to the reason that quality of the knowledge can only be determined when the people involvement will be more and more negative and positive sides of it are getting emerged. However, without the extensive acceptance due to the differences in language, feedback will not get emerged and quality also cannot get determined. For instance, if the knowledge for a new information technology is being given to the audience in different language to what they are practicing, then the audience will unlikely to accept it or they will be unable to accept even if they are willing to. Thus, from this argument, this can be concluded that the more people will accept the knowledge, the more will be its quality or the knowledge will not have any relevance in the audience and in the larger society.

Language and its Impact on Knowledge Acceptance

However, on the other hand, there are number of counterclaims also being identified by me. One of the major counterclaims identified is the fact that there is different knowledge already relevant in the current time, which is having lower audience or is targeted to smaller audience but that does not denoting that they are irrelevant. For instance, knowledge regarding the space technology is limited to a certain section and is not being accepted by the larger society but this is not reducing the relevancy of the knowledge. In addition, it is stated by Roberts that level of acceptance cannot determine the quality of the knowledge. It is also stated that negative knowledge such as some unwarranted incidents are having extensive acceptance among the people and this is not denoting that they are higher quality in nature. Thus, it can be concluded that quality of the knowledge cannot be measured by how many people accepting it. Hinduism is majorly practiced in the Indian subcontinent and that too only in India and Nepal. Thus, the level of acceptance for Hinduism is lower than that of Christianity and Islam and this is not denoting that the quality of knowledge for Hinduism is lower than that of other religions. Thus, it can be concluded from the claims and counterclaims that quality of knowledge cannot be measured by the level of acceptance.

Another major area of knowledge is the indigenous knowledge system that denotes that personal beliefs and emotion of the audience affecting in their level of acceptance for a particular knowledge. One of the major claims from the perspective of indigenous knowledge system regarding the fact that quality of knowledge can only be measured by its level of acceptance is personal approach of belief of the audience. This is due to the reason that beliefs of the audience can be influenced by different external factors such social and cultural norms, religious views and exposure to globalization. Thus, the more will be the negative belief towards certain knowledge; the lower will be the quality of it. This is due to the reason that if the approach of the knowledge is contradicting with that of the local beliefs and cultures of the society, then it can be perceived as lower quality. As per Cole et al., knowledge should always have positive and favorable impact on the society and on the audience and it should not create any contradiction with the people.  Thus, according to this claim from the perspective of indigenous knowledge system, it is highly likely that quality of the knowledge can be measured by the number of people accepted it.  

The Arts: Language and Audience Engagement

Furthermore, it is stated by Grand et al., that in the concept of teamwork also, quality of the knowledge can be measured by the number of people accepting it. The authors have given the example of a workplace team where the level of acceptance will determine the quality and effectiveness of the knowledge. This is due to the reason that from the perspective of indigenous knowledge system, if the approach of the knowledge is contradicting with the personal beliefs and emotion of the team members, then it will not get accepted. On the other hand, it is also being stated by the authors that even if the knowledge is applied in the team without having the acceptance of the team members, then also it will create negative vibe in the team and will affect the overall performance and efficiency. Thus, it can be concluded that quality of the knowledge can be measured by how many people accepting it.

On the other hand, there are number of counterclaims also being identified from the perspective of indigenous knowledge system. One of the major counterclaims is the presence of diverse beliefs and emotions of different sections across the world. This is in relation to the diverse religions and cultural factors around the world. Thus, with the presence of this diversity, it is highly unlikely that different knowledge will be accepted in holistic manner. In addition, it can also be concluded that rate of identifying quality knowledge will get reduced with the given social diversity. According to Green et al., in the case of diverse workforce, a certain course of knowledge management will not be accepted by the certain sections of the employees. In addition, in the current time, multinational organizations are having their presence in different regions around the world. Thus, their approach of providing knowledge is also different in accordance to the different beliefs and emotions of the cultures. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is not evident that lower level of acceptance of the knowledge denotes lower quality rather it may be accepted by a certain section and intended to do so. Thus, it can be concluded that even from the perspective of indigenous knowledge system, level of acceptance cannot measure the quality of the knowledge even if it is contradicting the individual beliefs of the people. It should also be noted that Wecker et al. stated about the niche level of acceptance. This denotes that even if the particular knowledge is contradicting with a certain section of audience, then also it is being accepted by others simultaneously. Thus, the point of going against the entire set of audience is not relevant from the view of these authors.

Conclusion

This can be concluded from the above arguments and counterarguments that it depends on the nature of the knowledge to get measured by its level of acceptance. This is due to the reason that if the knowledge is having wide and extensive set of target audience and it is expected that the majority of the audience will accept it, then the quality can be measured by the extent of acceptance. However, on the other hand, if the knowledge is targeted for a particular section of the audience, then the quality of it cannot get measured by how many people accepting it. In the above sections, it is also identified that in order to have the further and larger acceptance, it is important for the knowledge to have more diversified approach. It can be concluded that even though the quality of all types of knowledge cannot get measured by how many people accepting it, but the quality can be measured for obvious to a certain extent.

References

Cole, David R., et al. “Critical thinking skills in the International Baccalaureate’s “Theory of Knowledge” subject: Findings from an Australian study.” Australian Journal of Education 59.3 (2015): 247-264.

Grand, James A., et al. “The dynamics of team cognition: A process-oriented theory of knowledge emergence in teams.” Journal of Applied Psychology 101.10 (2016): 1353.

Green, Lawrence W., et al. “Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization and integration.” Frontiers in public health services & systems research 3.1 (2014): 3.

Hughes, Conrad. “Theory of Knowledge aims, objectives and assessment criteria: An analysis of critical thinking descriptors.” Journal of Research in International Education 13.1 (2014): 30-45.

Roberts, Bill. “The beginning of a blended learning experience in Theory of Knowledge.” The International Schools Journal 36.1 (2016): 79.

Wecker, Christof, et al. “Presenting theoretical ideas prior to inquiry activities fosters theory?level knowledge.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 50.10 (2013): 1180-1206.