Corporate Epistemology
SOURCE: Joe Firestone http://www.dkms.com/papers/corporateepistemologyandkm.pdf
Performance in business is nothing more than knowledge in use
What passes for knowledge is therefore of enormous importance – outcomes depend on its quality
Knowledge can be seen as beliefs or claims that we regard as true
First some background…
CRITICALISM: A view of inquiry which holds that all human knowledge is fallible and should be regarded as such (see Fallibilism), and that we are rational only to the extent that we hold our beliefs and our knowledge claims open to criticism and testing in order to eliminate the errors in them. Criticalism stands in opposition to Foundationalism and Justificationism in that it holds that there are no true and certain beliefs or formulations, and that no beliefs or knowledge claims can be or need be justified, but only subjected to error elimination through criticism
CRITICAL RATIONALISM: The orientation of Karl R. Popper which holds that all human knowledge is fallible and should be regarded as such (see Fallibilism), and that we are rational only to the extent that we hold our beliefs and our knowledge claims open to criticism and testing in order to eliminate the errors in them.
It is based on the idea that “all life is problem-solving” and that problem solving is a process of creating trials (between competing knowledge claims) and engaging in error elimination (criticism of these competing knowledge claims relying on the use of deductive reasoning and empirical testing where possible). Critical rationalism stands in opposition to foundationalism and justificationism, and is broader than falsificationism, which relates to empirical testing of knowledge claims only
FALLIBILISM: A viewpoint that sees all human knowledge as irreparably fallible and incapable of being proven or shown to be certain or justified.
MANAGERIAL JUSTIFICATIONISM: The idea that knowledge in organizations is fallible but may be justified by managerial authority
Back to it…
Most mainstream businesses and their managers are Fallibilist (i.e., they admit the fallibility of their own knowledge and avoid the view that knowledge can be had with certainty) – this is a good thing
But within the Fallibilist thread, there are divisions – KM diverges accordingly:
• Some Fallibilists insist on adopting beliefs and knowledge claims as if they were justifiably true, even though they admit knowledge with certainty is unavailable to us (these are Justificationists of the Floating Foundationalist kind)
• Other Fallibilists stick to their uncertainty roots and hold, instead, to a view that what we must do is continuously hold our beliefs and knowledge claims open to criticism (these are Criticalists)
Corporate KM strategies will dramatically differ (and should), depending, in part, on whether or not their epistemologies are Floating Foundationalist or Criticalist!
THE MAINSTREAM VIEW - The corporate epistemologies of most firms are fundamentally Justificationist:
• Admits that our knowledge is fallible, but says we must carry on as though it weren’t by endowing managers (or other authorities) to create knowledge that others regard as true
• A form of Justificationism that requires us to suspend our disbelief in the fallibility of knowledge
• What Mark Notturno calls Floating Foundationalism – a form of Foundationalism with – ironically – no foundation!
• Says that knowledge hatched by authorities is justifiably true
• Leads to adoption of falsehoods more often because the beliefs and claims of authorities go untested
• Fraught with risk
ADVANTAGE OF CRITICALISM
Quality of knowledge is higher, since assumption of justifiable truth is abandoned in favor of holding knowledge continuously open to criticism and accountable for its error
Firms that take Criticalist positions in their epistemologies are fundamentally more adaptive because they never view their knowledge as being true with certainty
CONCLUSION
• Most practices in KM are Justificationist in orientation
• While rejecting the idea of truth with certainty, they carry on as though they don’t (e.g., knowledge produced by managers treated as if it were true with certainty)
• Justificationism introduces and intensifies risk
• Crticalism, by contrast, institutionalizes a Fallibilist ethic and rewards testing and evaluation of knowledge claims
• Criticalism lowers risk and improves quality of performance by acting as a quality control system for knowledge
• KM has become a powerful new form of risk management and should be positioned accordingly!
Related
Critical Rationalism (Fallibilism) says:
“…that knowledge needs neither to be justified nor to be true, but only needs to survive our best efforts at criticism, testing, and evaluation […] we test competing knowledge claims”
Since justification and certain proof is not attainable, the obligation to find a method that will produce certainty does not exist, and the obligation to pursue certainty ourselves without such a method is also gone. What remains is the problem of selecting among our tentative solutions, “our guesses” according to a method that is open to us. This method is error elimination through criticism of competing ideas and beliefs in light of various critical perspectives (fallible ideas themselves) we develop and uses
…in problem solving and in life, the critical perspective is the key. It is responsible for the elimination of errors, the growth of knowledge, and for adaptation in individuals and society.
The miracle of Knowledge Management: Managing ‘Justified true belief’
