Knowledge centres, knowledge circles, knowledge companies and knowledge management.

Clouds of knowledge are spread over the environment by Stenden University of Applied Sciences, Leeuwarden

Read this morning in the “Metro”, a for-free distributed daily Dutch newspaper: “The knowledge company (kennisbedrijf in Dutch) DelftTech will investigate the murder on Prince William of Orange again with modern technological equipment”. Again it confronted me with the meaning of the word “knowledge”. We are often confused about it because knowledge can have different meanings, ranging from broad to narrow, and from external to internal. I have a feeling that, since one or two of these meanings are associated with power and importance, they will be exploited by commerce and politics. The problem is that we are often unaware of our confusion, we think we know what knowledge is. Smart politicians and managers know this and stealthily impose their definitions on society, totally according to Norbert Elias’ definition of the “meaning” of social concepts (see below, Elias, N.(1991): Symbol Theory; Sage, London).
Why is the meaning of a concept so important? Can’t you simply state that a meaning is the description a dictionary or Google gives to it? I follow the wisdom of Norbert Elias who states that a meaning of a social concept is always the meaning most common people attach to it. This is the meaning a culture, a society attaches to a concept, and not the meaning some scientists or scholars try to propagate. Huh? Do we not consult dictionaries because in our school assignments and academic papers we first have to define (=give the meaning) of the items we are writing about? Yes, that’s because science has developed into a jungle of concepts and theories and most scientifically constructed concepts are not used by the men in the street. If you write about “knowledge” you first have to define it. OK, but most articles, messages and scribblings (such as the one quoted from “Metro”) don’t define it because they assume that the reader already knows the meaning, and isn’t “knowledge” a very frequently used word, and doesn’t it sound important and valuable? Defining it would be like inventing the wheel again. This way readers and clients become vulnerable of the way commercial and powerful elements such as politicians and media try to impose a certain meaning. And since a school or university is supposed to work with “knowledge” as their core product, it’s important to know what they are dealing with, and what politics and general opinion assume they are dealing with.
I will try to give an overview of the different meanings it can have. I do this because I find that not only science but also commerce and many people who (find that they) work with knowledge try to influence readers, clients and customers with their vision on what “knowledge” is. So first of all, Norbert Elias has said (and he is right) that the meaning of a concept such as “knowledge” (not of a chemical compound or a biological process) is determined by its users, and not by sociologists or philosophers or whatever scholars. Second, I will try to do this by using the two dimensions: from broad to narrow, and from external to internal.
In ancient antiquity knowledge was a very broad concept. In Latin it is “scientia” (from “scire” = “to know”), in Greek it is “gnosis”. There is a famous old saying in Greek “Know yourself” (gnothi seauton). This is thé example of the broad, and at the same time internal, definition of “knowledge”. In English we often say: “he knows the ropes”. This is an example of a broad, external definition (which by the way, is not in line with the meaning of knowledge used in the “competence learning” theory): knowing the ropes is having good professional competence. In competence learning theory “knowledge” is only part of “knowing the ropes” because it has to be integrated with attitude, affinity and other personality traits. For knowing the ropes all this is “knowledge”. Knowing the ropes is broader.
Then we have our knowledge centres, knowledge campuses, knowledge circles, knowledge industry and knowledge companies. They are called that way by policymakers, board members, managers, etc. and never by the scholars or “knowledge workers” themselves. These knowledge producers or, better, “knowledge generating institutions” can be split up into two groups: one part is intended to “spread knowledge” over its environment which is mostly meant to be the local small business, and politicians want to raise the employability figures this way. The other part is intended to enhance application of scientific research in the areas of business & industry, “sustainability”, energy saving, environmental pollution, building and construction, and ICT innovations and applications. Knowledge is always used in relation to application when you hear a politician or manager speak about it. Knowledge without direct application is useless, is no knowledge at all in their eyes. It is highly external and moderately narrow. External because knowledge of oneself is not the issue (or at most only supporting the external knowledge, like a student has to know his/her own strengths and weaknesses as a support, a means to learning the ropes of his/her study discipline), and narrow because it entails limited knowledge on specialist areas.
Then there is knowledge in what I would like to call knowledge in its spiritual meaning. This knowledge is both external and internal, and broad. It comes close to the ancient meaning of knowledge and is universal. The Greek called it “gnosis” (= “knowledge”). It comes also close to religion. We call e.g. somebody an “agnostic” (= “not-knower”) if (s)he is convinced that (s)he doesn’t know if there exists a God or not. It’s also knowledge in the meaning of “life experience” as we see it in the Dutch proverb: “Who collects knowledge, collects sorrow”, meaning that the more you know about life and world, the more sorrow there is you know about.
Now I hope I have explained to the reader and to myself why I get a bit irritated hearing the word “knowledge” pronounced by a politician or manager. Knowledge spread in a “knowledge market”(183,000 hits on Google) by an army of knowledge managers (“knowledge management”: 17.6 million hits on Google). After “hospitality” and a number of other meaningful social concepts, now also “knowledge” is going to be absorbed by business. An impoverishment.