Rethinking Knowledge in a networked world

One of my conundrums, as I have highlighted in previous posts, has been what will happen to Knowledge. I have used knowledge with a capital "K" because, as Weinberger, in his Too Big to Know: Rethinking Knowledge Now That the Facts Aren't the Facts, Experts are Everywhere, and the Smartest person in the Room Is the Room, outlines it has become an abstract noun that is treasured within Western society. At this stage I am halfway through the book and am intrigued by many of the ideas, jotting things down as I go along.

I have been also reading some of the reviews on Amazon to see what others think of Weinberger's ideas and have found, as with any piece of literature, a wide variety of viewpoints, to the extent that some are pummelling it as "the solution to the information overload problem" but others are claiming its arguments are "unconvincing."

In the former review Getaneh Agegn Alemu, a librarian, who is at the heart of the cataloguing and classification system of information, argues that the book by Weinberger is "disruptive" to classification systems but also to the "very definition of metadata," a modern term for cataloguing and classifying information. He or she writes that the book provides a critique of the classical DIKW (Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom) pyramid that has been the dominant model in computer science and library information. The writer also points out that the era of networks is better suited to how we as human beings make links. We don't do it in the "simplistic, linear and long form" way that information processing theories have posited but more like an "intricate web of links and associations." This is supported by Dave Snowden, a consultant in knowledge management, who says that the reason "why the web works" is because of the "small fragmented data items" that "associate and re-associate very quickly."

   by  AJC1 

What is interesting is how the writer of the review highlights the phenonema of information overload has even made it into the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) for psychiatrists. Even experiencing some angst or fatigue over too much information has become pathologised. I, like the writer of the review prefer Clay Shirky's arguments that it is "not information overload. It is filter failure." It is a skill that individuals need to learn rather than identifying it as a potential psychological issue that needs a label. There are also benefits of such an "open ecology," as Snowden also believes, where the environment of networked links will provide a "fertile ground for innovation and creativity."

In contrast to the above review Corwin J. Joy argues that the Weinberger's book provides an overly simplistic viewpoint on the benefits of networked thinking. He or she targets Weinberger's claim that when many experts are involved in a project or are solving a problem they develop the best answer rather than an individual on their own. Corwin writes how in the "real" world Weinberger's strategy will not work as a "network isn't going to magically come up with an answer." This is supported by an advertising guru John Hegarty, in his book There Are No Rules, who says that the thinking of groups only lead to "average," not innovation or creativity. I still have doubts about Weinberger's claim but in contrast to the group-thinking that happens in organisations, where, as Corwin asserts, "the same stupid wrong answers to a problem" is often circulated "around and around," the web lacks the structure and constraints, therefore, its chaotic structure, as Snowden conceptualises it, almost invites dissent in opinion, as there is no overarching authority to say who should say or do what - there may even be a "wisdom of crowds."

One of my concerns, as Corwin highlights, is that within the networked world there is not much of a role for "sustained" and "critical thinking," at least in as far as I have read so far. To make deep conceptual or paradigm shifts, as I have through deep study of theoretical ideas, particularly within fields like sociology, where the student is taken back to the Greek and Roman era of many millennia ago to the post-modern theorists of today, all the while questioning and re-evaluating everything they have ever known to be true or reality. Will students who are inundated with a plethora of information, provided by an endless array of networks, be able to engaged in the type of sustained thinking that is required for paradigm shifts. A friend of mine said that in the age of the Internet is it not that individuals have access to more ideas, what is happening is the same ideas are just going around and around.

These are my thoughts at this stage. It looks like I am not alone as I have been reading many of my peer's posts, such as Anne's, who is "not 100% sure" about the notion that teachers will become filters rather than sources of information, or knowledge. Nevertheless, she sees her primary role as providing her students with the "freedom and opportunity to construct their own knowledge." This reflects how Anne, and many teachers, in contrast to the past, see their role to nurture students who are active knowledge producers. Andrew has expressed similar concerns to me about what is happening to knowledge and whether the age of networks will be better or worse. Although many of us are embracing networked thinking we also question the process along the way.