11/15/07
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND
THE ORGANIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE
Saad Z. Nagi 1
The objectives in this statement are to: clarify what is meant by science and technology; explain the relationships between the two; and distinguish between the ways knowledge is organized for codifying the theoretical principles of disciplines and for applied purposes. Distinctions have been made among three “ways of knowing”2: theology, in which beliefs are grounded in faith; philosophy, where consistency is the primary criterion for acceptance of systems and arguments; and science, which requires empirical verification of information. Three sets of criteria are used to identify and evaluate scientific material.3 First, are “norms of correspondence” which refer to “how a theory fits the facts”. Empirical tests for these norms are anchored in sense observation directly, or by inference. Second, are “norms of coherence” which pertain to the “integration” of the work being evaluated, into related literature. Internal integration is concerned with how the various parts of the work itself fit together, while the external level refers to integration within the broader body of related literature. Integration at either level should not be interpreted necessarily to mean conformity to existing literature. At times, new discoveries introduce fundamental change in theories and paradigms. Thus, integration also entails explaining and reconciling the differences in findings. Third, are “pragmatic norms” which relate to the theory’s contributions to the advancement of science itself, and its utility in practical application as in technological developments.
Turning now to the meaning of technology, it generally refers to ”…bodies of skills, knowledge, and procedures for making, using, and doing useful things”4. However, many technologies can, and do, have negative side effects that vary considerably in significance. The use of the concept of technology has been largely limited to processes that are basically physical and biological in nature; that is, “hard technology”. The scientific knowledge involved here comes primarily from such disciplines as astronomy, physics, chemistry, and biology. However it is important also to give serious attention to “soft technology” which relates to social and behavioral processes. Important examples of such processes include the formation of organizations for different purposes; systems of management and of marketing; systems of governance and public administration; the formulation of policies, laws, and regulations; planning and managing social movements; and innovations in values and norms that guide the behavior of individuals and collectives in their daily lives. Pertinent scientific knowledge comes from such disciplines as anthropology, sociology, political science, economics, and history. It should be noted that technological developments are also influenced, sometimes greatly, and especially in the soft technologies, when other forms of knowledge such as morals, ethics, and ideologies, derived from theological and philosophical ways of knowing, impinge on decisions.
Historically, developments in science and technology followed widely independent pathways. Inventions were perfected through “trial and error”, while many theoretical discoveries remained on the shelves in academic libraries distant from application. Thomas Edison’s work on inventing the electric lamp illustrates the point. In response to reminders that already many trials have failed, he is reputed to have responded to the effect that: now, at least we know that all the earlier elements do not work. Over time, the pathways of scientific knowledge and technological innovations have become increasingly close, reaching much higher levels of synergy during the 20thCentury, especially the last half. The results have been massive and spectacular transformations in all walks of life: communication, transportation, health care, systems of production and distribution, among others. As has already been mentioned, it is important to keep in mind that many technologies have negative side effects, sometimes serious. This is especially evident when change is rapid and technologies are not assimilated at an even pace. The resulting “cultural lags” in adjustment and accommodation create disruptions in peoples’ lives. This frequently occurs in the processes of modernization. Important also is that the benefits and negatives of these transformations have not been equally distributed among or within nations.
In an informative discussion of the recurrent issue of relationships between theory and practice, Jonas distinguishes between knowledge that enters into the determination of ends and that used in the selection of means.5 For example, knowledge that underlies the establishment of priorities among such goals as advancing environmental protection, expanding access to quality health care, improving capacities of educational institutions, developing transportation and communication systems, differs fundamentally from the knowledge applied to implement whichever goal has been selected. The former requires judgments based on values, while the latter requires an understanding of processes. Within the latter category, he identifies three types of knowledge. First, is “knowledge which pronounces on possibility in principle” and which rests on scientific universal laws. Second, is knowledge “which maps, still in the abstract, possible ways of realization.” This type is composed of “more complex and more specific causal patterns,” embodying universal principles and “providing models for rules of action.” The third type is knowledge involved in “the discernment of the course of action most practicable in the given circumstances.” Such knowledge “of what to do now is entirely particular, placing the task within the context of the whole concrete situation.”
A primary objective in this statement is to explain the differences between the First and Second types of knowledge identified above. As has already been pointed out, both are forms of scientific information and are commonly referred to as “basic” and “applied”. Fundamental distinctions between basic and applied science can be made when criteria are based on the types and organization of knowledge produced, rather than on the researcher’s values and attitudes or the sponsor’s mission. How can the two types of theoretical knowledge be differentiated? Two criteria: (a) the ways used in codifying knowledge, that is, the models or forms of theory construction; and (b) the nature of the phenomenon being explained and whether it is strictly of theoretical interest or constitutes a social or a technical problem. In regard to (a), two models for theory were identified — hierarchicalin which “component laws are presented as deductions from a small set of basic principles”, (suitable for codifying basic knowledge of the fields); and patternin which the laws converge on a central phenomenon which they are to explain (suitable for the organization of applicable knowledge).6
Systems analysishas become the usual term for the process of breaking down a complex problem into detailed components, applying the knowledge related to each of these components, and recombining the components into a new whole. By such a process, knowledge from the various disciplines relevant to the product or problem can be identified and applied. It is no accident that emphasis upon knowledge applicable to the solution of social and technological problems has given impetus to systems analysis and led to the criticism that university research and teaching is organized within “departments representing the narrow academic discipline.”7However, while the type of coordination characteristic of the systems approach has demonstrated remarkable success in hardware technology, its effectiveness remains to be shown in helping to apply existing knowledge to the solution of social problems.
In conclusion, it is obvious that the “environment” is a very broad and complex topic that includes all external objects and conditions that surround an organism. Much knowledge has been accumulated about related issues and problems. The attempt in this statement is to provide a map/guide for organizing and integrating such a massive body of information. In addition to charting the current knowledge, is the task of identifying where gaps exist in theories and explanations, where new data need to be generated, what innovations need to be diffused, and the priorities in which these activities should to be pursued. Clearly, these are not tasks that can be limited to academics, corporations, or to governments. All are important to the identification of problems, the discovery of related knowledge, and innovation in remedial approaches. The diffusion and adoption of these innovations call for the participation of all individuals and collectives. Useful in this respect is the concept of “community of solution” — the boundaries within which a problem can be defined, dealt with, and solved.8The communities of solution for environmental problems may be global, regional, national, sub-national, or local.
References:
1. Professor Emeritus, Sociology, The Ohio State University; and Former Director of the Social Research Center at American University in Cairo.
2. McEwen, William P, 1963, The Problem of Social-Scientific Knowledge, Totowa, MJ: The Bedminister Press
3. Kaplan, Abraham, 1964, The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science, San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company.
4. Merrill, Robert S, 1968,The Study of Technology,in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, David S. Sills (Editor), New York and London: The Macmillan Company & The Free Press.
5. Jonas, Hans, 1963, “ The Practical Use of Theory,” in Philosophy of the Social Sciences,Maurice Natanson (Editor), New York, Random Haouse.
6. For futher discussion of these two types of theories, see Abraham Kaplan, op. cit. pp 298-302; see also, Saad Z. Nagi and Ronald G. Corwin (eds), The Social Contexts of Research., New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 4-9.
7. Steinhart, John S and Stacie Cherniack, 1969, “The Universities and Environmental Quality: Commitment to Problem Focused Education”, Office of the President, Washington DC
8. Nagi, Saad Z, 2000, “Toward a Global Community of Solution”, in Building a World Community: Globalization and the Common Good,Jacques Baudot (editor),Copenhagen: Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
.