When you come to do advanced studies at a tertiary institution such as Regenesys, you are bound to bump up against the philosophical concept of epistemology. Epistemology is useful because it involves understanding how we, as unique individuals, shape our understanding of the world around us.
And we use this “conceived” understanding of the world as a base for our decisions and actions. In our rapidly evolving digital world, it’s a great advantage to look inwards to understand what shapes our view of the world and the organising frameworks we use to make sense of it. By doing this we can make better decisions. This is a simple introduction to a very complicated field of study.
The term “epistemology” is a combination of the Greek words “episteme” and “logos”.
“Episteme” can be translated as “knowledge” “understanding” or “acquaintance”, while “logos” can be translated as “account” “argument” or “reason”.
Epistemology, then, is the study of how we “know” things.
Let’s consider a simple, everyday object like a table.
How do we know it’s a table? Well, we can measure its dimensions, and we can identify the materials it was made from. We can weigh the table and identify its colour. Underlying our thinking in this case is a scientific view of knowledge and the world. We can then go and statistically enumerate many tables and derive hypotheses about the shape and size of tables in general. We might even predict how future tables might look.
Our approach here is positivist and we rely on quantitative data. Positivism is an approach that holds that all genuine knowledge is either true as in mathematical formulae or derived from sensory experience such as measuring or weighing an object.
There is a “distance” between us and the table. We are objective and we regard ourselves as being impartial and unattached. In a positivist mindset, we want to generalise our findings to a larger population of all tables. We are obtaining hard, indisputable data. Other people can measure and weigh the table and come to the same conclusion.
But there are other ways in which we can “know” our table. We can ask a different set of questions. Is it being used as a desk or a dining table? Or is it used as both at different times of the day? Is it in a home or an office? Is it placed in a certain position because of its aesthetic attributes?
Does it tell us about the lifestyle or social class of the owner? Here we are looking at the table, not as a separate object but within a social context, of which we are also a part. This is the Interpretivist approach to knowledge. The observer is an inseparable part of the object under study. The observer must decide what data to capture and how to interpret it.
Here we are not looking at tables in general, but at a particular table in, for example, the dining room of a suburban home. Here the observer becomes part of the object of study. Other observers may look at the same table and come up with a different set of observations, equally valid, but based on different assumptions about and interpretations of the social context.
The different world views and life experiences of observers, when brought together, brings a richer understanding of “tableness.” And we are obliged to consider different views, based on different views of the world.
These are not the only approaches to “knowing” something, but they provide us with a basis on which to reflect on the nature of knowledge. Another major branch of epistemology is Pragmatism which focuses on the usefulness and application of applied research.
Realism on the other hand is the view that something may exist independently of whether we think about it or not. You can easily see why a conversation about epistemology becomes very complicated, very quickly.
But let’s keep our analysis simple here, and return to Positivism and Interpretivism. Invariably the question arises: ”Which one is better?” And the answer, of course, is neither. Both are valid and useful ways of creating knowledge. For leaders, it’s important to appreciate the strengths of both approaches to understanding the context of the world of work.
Too much emphasis on an objective, numbers-driven, Positivist approach will create a cold, dispassionate understanding of the work reality. On the other hand, a subjective, Interpretivist view, based on many different assumptions, will create a chaotic understanding of the work context.
We can see this at play in the stereotypes we use in organisations. The engineers and accountants are obsessed with the numbers – and the numbers don’t lie. The marketing and human resources folks are concerned with perceptions and recognising diversity in different points of view.
The challenge is for each one of us to embrace both a Positivist structuring of knowledge along with an Interpretivist understanding of the social context. To be able to hold both approaches in our minds at the same time gives us a richer grasp of the issues and leads to unique strategic solutions. It is these unique solutions that may just give your business the edge over the opposition. It is worth the effort.
And what is more, you will never look at a table in the same way again.
