What is happening to "knowledge"?

As I've highlighted in previous posts I've been thinking a lot about how knowledge is going to be thought about in a networked world. What is clear is that the conception of knowledge is changing but the question for me is where does this leave it?

I definitely have "pre-existing prejudices" about what is knowledge and how it should be acquired, as expressed in a previous post. In contrast to many of my students I grew up in the "library era." The Internet really came of age when I was in my early twenties. I discovered Google at about twenty-two years and have been using it as my major search engine ever since, trying out others along the way (i.e. Yahoo, Bing and other "imposters" along the way but finding Google's simple interface to be the best - there really is truth to the adage that "simple is often the best.") but being mostly content to use its interface. The likes of Google Scholar have been a bonus, and has added to its desirability and complexity.

Due to my insatiable desire to know what is happening to knowledge I decided to purchase Too Big to Know by David Weinberger through Audible (Audible is how I read a lot of my books, whilst driving, cleaning the house and even going for a walk. Why spend those moments in solitude I say). He presents an interesting argument about what it means to know something in a world where expert credentials or public acknowledgement of what you have achieved is not essential prerequisites for writing your own opinion on anything. I mean, I still look at an individual's "CV' when I begin reading their articles or what they have to say.

However, as I'm learning through Weinberger's book, and I'm only a quarter in at this stage, my preconception about what constitutes authority is due to my model of the world, in a bygone era where to say anything you had to be somebody that almost everyone agreed had the authority, at the very least, to speak about the topic. In other words, you needed legitimacy. According to my narrative of the world, an individual not only had to have a lot of knowledge about an area to write about it but they had to have lived and breathed it. Could explain why I purchased Weinberger's book, I saw him as having legitimacy to talk about it and my worshipping of the humble book.

Weinberger says it is too simple to assert that the Internet - due to the phantasmal amount of information that is accessible to anyone - will result in a "dumbed-down" population. He asserts, and with a very convincing argument, as supported by Cory, in his review of Weinberg's "book-length argument," that it is more important to see that the Internet is creating individuals who are able to better think for themselves, not just due to the endless variety of opinions that they have access to, but to the potential for participants to become active voices on the Internet, using the information to change the world. In other words, rather than be passive recipients, like in the bygone era where we passively acquired the information, either in school, the workplace or in front of the television or through reading the newspaper, we are now able to shape the information ourselves, thus feeling empowered through our contributions.

Advocates for the networked era that is the world we are in have many powerful arguments. In contrast to the "gilded cage" of the industrial age, in the information age information will be accessible to everyone. I for one am happy wit this. One of the things that really annoyed me once I graduated from university was not having access to the journals that I had come accustomed to for four years. I loved being on the "cutting-edge" of research, seeing what was the current thought patterns of leaders in the field. As soon as I left university I was shut out, no longer able to surf this vaulted networks, alas at a cost of almost $40 per journal. I was able to obtain memberships with teaching organisations but not to the calibre provided by universities.

Nevertheless, there are dangers. One the Internet, as I often tell my students, "nobody knows your dog." Although metaphorical it drives the point home, as it illustrates, regardless of how "nutty" or "wayward" your ideas, they can spread like wildfire. However, has this not always been the case, and is it more important to give these "alternative" voices a platform as what was once considered to be "radical" or even belonging to a "cult" can become the most liberating movement or even one of the world's major religions?

Know that I see I have access to leading academics in the field of networked learning, as David has illustrated through his blog, where he frequently shares with his audience, or whoever is interested in networked learning and its influence on higher education, can come and share in the discourse. A lot of other academics are following suit (i.e. Connected Courses), and I can imagine this will increase as the potential is realised. I'm already experiencing the fruition of being actively involved in networks, where individuals, such as Anne, share information on knowledge construction to assist in my understanding of the area.

Where does this leave me now? I'll continuing on my journey to find out what will happen to knowledge and share these ideas with you.

   by  sjcockell