How Shared Knowledge shapes Personal Knowledge - Case Study Example

Module How Shared Knowledge shapes Personal Knowledge INTRODUCTION Shared knowledge and personal knowledge are the only variants of knowledge in existence today. These two dimensions form the core of all knowledge, but they are also extremely broad in their own right. Shared knowledge, which is also known as common knowledge, comprises information that is widely accepted by majority people. Shared knowledge consists of indisputable information that cannot be challenged factually. These include historical events, scientific discoveries, and natural events that large masses of people can resonate with and visualize. They can be interpreted differently but cannot be changed. Personal knowledge is, essentially, opinions. People think differently and, therefore, have different views of phenomena and events. While personal knowledge varies, shared knowledge does not. One person might think that World War Two could have been avoided while another may think that it was inevitable. However, both cannot change the fact that World War Two happened and cannot be altered. DISCUSSION Personal knowledge and shared knowledge are actually very closely related. They influence each other in infinite ways, and each borrows from the other. In this paper, however, the focus is on the effect of shared knowledge on personal knowledge, with emphasis on two areas of knowledge. To obtain a critical outlook of the influence of shared knowledge on personal knowledge, it is important to understand that most personal knowledge stems from shared knowledge (Adolf and Stehr 29). For example, most of the opinions people have are informed by widely accepted information. This can be explained by the fact that a majority of people like to reason from a sound platform that gives their opinions the credibility and authenticity they seek. As a matter of fact, it is tasking to build critical personal opinions based on other people’s thoughts. The high degree of authenticity contained in shared knowledge is a solid base upon which individual thoughts can be constructed. Shared knowledge is universal, meaning it transcends religion, culture, social norms, or political affiliations. It does not matter what one thinks or feels; shared knowledge is an inevitability that is omnipresent in our lives. It also overflows to other generations, meaning that it has an element of permanence that cannot be diluted by anything other than other groundbreaking evidence. For example, the 1929 Depression is shared knowledge that has been passed on from generation to generation, and will remain prevalent regardless of time (Barnes 43). Unlike personal knowledge, shared knowledge defies time. An individual might have personal belief in God, but membership in any major religion is likely to transform that belief into shared knowledge. For example, the Catholic Church has unique beliefs, practices, thinking, and principles that manifest as shared knowledge in its 1.2 billion adherents. As a result, one Catholic’s personal belief in the resurrection, for example, may be heavily influenced by the common knowledge obtained from the Roman Catholic Church. Two areas of knowledge that can be used to demonstrate the effect of shared knowledge on personal knowledge are human sciences and medicine. Medicine Medicine is a very complex field, and one which incorporates both personal and shared knowledge. In medicine, there is evidence to show that shared knowledge has significant influence on personal knowledge. For example, it is indisputable that, on average, the human heart beats 72 times a minute. It is also factual and widely accepted that illnesses are often caused by viruses, fungi, bacteria, parasites, or prion (Mariussen and Virkkala 52). However, these facts have provided the inspiration for individual research that explores whether there are other infectious agents besides the aforementioned five. Some scholars have stated that they believe that there are more infectious agents than the five commonly bandied around. This is their opinion (knowledge) that cannot be used to practice medicine, and it is informed by the fact that it is widely accepted that there are five common infectious agents. The common knowledge that the heart rests at 72 beats per minute has led researchers to develop ways of calculating the heart rate of an individual, because it varies from one person to the other depending on physiological conditions. These include Karvonen method and the Zoladz technique. However, these methods are all based on the fact that the average heart rate is 72 beats per minute, and Karvonen and Zoladz are only providing their opinion on how the heart rate of any individual can be determined (Schiedat 23). In medicine, it is also commonly accepted that the virus is mutative in nature, which makes developing a cure for it not only difficult but also unlikely. Some people have claimed that alternative medicine offers more hope in dealing with the mutative aspect of the disease than conventional medicine while others think the opposite. What matters, however, is that both sides’ opinions are not factual. In addition, they only exist because of the proven fact (shared knowledge) that AIDS is caused by a virus and the virus is mutative nature. Any other opinions (personal knowledge) are informed by this fact, and unless major developments occur that prove that conventional medicine is the most effective approach to remedying the problem, all other information is just opinions. Finally, in the field of medical research, it is widely accepted that plants or animals, including humans, are used as subjects for testing drugs and other medical procedures. For example, pharmaceutical researchers use pigs, dogs, and other animals test whether their remedies will be effective in humans. This is a fact (common knowledge) that cannot be changed because there is no other way to determine the effectiveness of drugs and the risks they pose to humans. In spite of this, there are people who think that animals and humans should not be used as test subjects because it is unethical (personal knowledge) (Polanyi 37). Ultimately, people can express all the opinions they hold on animal testing, but it does not change the fact that animal testing is common knowledge. It emanates from the indisputable notion that animals are used for testing medical procedures and drugs. In addition, without animal testing there would be no ethical debate inspired by personal knowledge and the moral rights of animals. Human Sciences (Conformity, Socialization) The clearest way in which common knowledge defines personal knowledge in the field of human sciences involves the concepts of primary and ancillary socialization). For example, evidence relating to primary and ancillary socialization can be obtained from numerous individual researches, including the Theory of Social Development (Vygotsky), the Theory of Sex Role Development (Maccoby), Bobo Doll research (Bandura) and Gender Development Research (Bem). However, these are opinions (personal knowledge) that are informed by the indisputable fact (shared knowledge) that humans are naturally social beings (Mair 19). From sexual development to cultural harmony and relationships, it has been proven that socialization comes naturally to humans. Individual studies such as those conducted by Maccoby and Vygotsky are shaped by the common knowledge that, first and foremost, humans are social. It is difficult to imagine the abovementioned studies being conducted if it was not widely accepted that socialization is part of the human makeup. Another area of human sciences that can be used to prove that shared knowledge influences personal knowledge is the psychosocial discipline of conformity. Virtually any study in this field has a link, a core that borrows from groundbreaking researches that have been accepted as common knowledge. These include Lines Research (Asch), the Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo) and Crutchfield’s studies. Another field of knowledge that can be used as an example of how shared knowledge shapes personal knowledge is research into the psychology of obedience (Clandinin, Downey, and Schaefer 34). Individual studies such as Milgram’s Obedience Experiment and Hofling’s research on nurses reveal that social traditions define personal knowledge and, consequently, individual behavior. In spite of this, it could be counterargued that the personalized knowledge of contrast (probably embarrassment) is evolving behavior, which then influences the masses (shared knowledge). In recent times, there have been plenty of debates that pit one body of knowledge against the other. For example, some scholars argue that personal knowledge is superior to common knowledge while others hold that shared knowledge is the dominant force (Shore 17). However, such debates are unnecessary because they deny people from getting the maximum from the two concepts. The conclusion should be that both areas of knowledge are important and require the utmost attention from scholars and opinion makers alike. Debate should be limited to understanding how they influence each other and how they can be improved. CONCLUSION This paper has shown that there is a close correlation between shared knowledge and personal knowledge. One cannot exist without the other, but they are also independent to an extent. Shared knowledge defines personal knowledge in many ways. First, it gives it the credibility and authority required to gain acceptance. In the areas of human sciences and medicine, which demand a very high level of authenticity, shared knowledge is relied on to pave the way for the construction of personal knowledge. This paper shows that shared knowledge has considerable influence on personal knowledge. The difference between shared knowledge and personal knowledge pushes one to contemplate the difference between the “we know” and “I know” aspects of knowledge. If one starts thinking about examples to finish the phrase “I know….,” there are numerous words that can come up and they are also unique to the individual. On the other hand, the list of words to complete the phrase “we know…,” resonate with the masses Works Cited Adolf, Marian, & Nico Stehr. Knowledge. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Print. Barnes, Barry. The Elements of Social Theory. Revised ed. Princeton, N.J.: Routledge, 2013. Print. Clandinin, J., A. Downey, & L. Schaefer, eds. Narrative Conceptions of Knowledge towards Understanding Teacher Attrition. London: Emerald, 2014. Print. Mair, Miller. Between Psychology and Psychotherapy (Psychology Revivals) a Poetics of Experience. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2013. Print. Mariussen, A., and S. Virkkala, eds. Learning Transnational Learning. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print. Polanyi, Michael. Science, Faith, and Society. Illustrated ed. Chicago: U of Chicago, 2013. Print. Schiedat, Dennis. Knowledge Transfer through Multinational Teams. München: GRIN Verlag GmbH, 2013. Print. Shore, Cris. Up Close and Personal: On Peripheral Perspectives and the Production of Anthropological Knowledge. New York: Berghahn, 2013. Print. Read More