Knowledge has been the
subject of various conceptualizations over what it is and how it is
structured. There are a number of
graphic representations of how experts have visualized that structure; for
example, H. Lynn Erickson provides such a representation.[1] In sharing this writer’s understanding, the
elements of that structure are presented; they reflect one visualization of
that structure. People, at the most
abstract level of thinking, harbor in their minds theories and models. These represent knowledge at its most
abstract level.
When
people learn or develop a reliable explanation of some aspect of reality that
is known as a theory. A theory is not
accepted as truth – it is subject to being disproved – but to justify the title
of theory, there is ample evidence to support its viability in explaining its
corresponding reality.
Short
of that level of reliability, there can be a good account of an aspect of
reality that logically provides, given what is known or what other theories
indicate is true, a reasonable explanation for some phenomena but there is not
enough evidence to call it a theory.
That is known as a model.
A
good pair of examples, one of a theory and one of a model, can be cited by meteorologists
in reporting hurricanes and presented on TV weather reports. While weather reporters can boast having developed
theories as to what causes hurricanes and why they appear during certain times
– June through November – they can’t assuredly predict where they will go.
Instead
they show off those “spaghetti” lines that “predict” various possible
routes. Which one is correct, if any are,
only time will tell. Why do they lack in
predictive power? Because they are based
on models, not theories. Through
research, meteorologists aim to perfect those models so that only one or a few
predictive lines emerge from the known data.
When the number gets to one or two, then one can say a theory for
hurricane paths has been developed or discovered.
That
theory will be a theory because it will provide a reliable prediction of what a
hurricane will do given the concurrent factors at work. But until that day, meteorologists and, in
turn, the public must rely on models. In
the natural sciences, the general public is used to the benefit of having
theories explaining much of the observed reality modern humans observe. Examples range from how and why things fall
to surface of the earth to why injuries, untreated, can lead to degradation of
organic material.
The
social sciences have not been so successful.
Human behavior has proven to be eluding reliable explanations or
theories. Therefore, social scientists
are used to dealing with models. For
example, one model is why and where revolutions will erupt. Davies’ J-Curve provides a model in which the
factor of rising expectations emanating from improvements among a people
followed by a sudden downturn engenders intolerable anger among a
population. That, according to this
model, leads a people to be disposed to take part in revolutionary activities.[2]
With
that short review of theories and models, one area of interest in the social
sciences is the study of urban societies.
One near theory in that field has to do with either the allure or unattractiveness
of cities as places for people to live.
What attracts people and what repels people to cities? Those are questions demographers and urbanists
have been studying.
They
are interested in them since a great many socially determined events and
movements rely on whether cities are growing or not; on whether their growth or
decline reflects other social/economic developments. For example, a question related to this
overall concern is: How do employment
opportunities affect not only whether cities become popular places to move to,
but whether urban living encourages a more global, as opposed to nationalistic,
bias among certain populations?
Mikael
Krogerus and Roman Tschappeler share the urbanist Richard Florida’s view on
these questions. They write:
Do people really follow jobs? Not anymore, [Florida] claimed. Today, jobs follow people. Because of the close link between growth and
creativity, there is a battle for creative talent. The winners of this battle will not be
nations but cities and regions that can offer a combination of the “3 Ts” [Technology,
Talent, and Tolerance] … We want to add another “T” to these three factors:
Time Perspective.[3]
Some of these factors, upon reflection, are obvious but to
present this model, one should provide, at least, a general sense of what each
of these qualities include. So,
technology functions to make the development of newer products possible. Growth depends on that sort of development
and, in turn, provides the new and attractive employment opportunities.
Technology, as it becomes evermore sophisticated and reliant
on workers to understand complex realities – mechanical, chemical, and/or
organic – relies on workforces with highly developed talents. These talents can be of various varieties
such as those that are entrepreneurial, artistic and creative, and/or those
that rely on programming skills. They
also depend on the ability to work within teams of such talented people.
And to secure these pools of talent, localities need people
who are open to working with people who come from various backgrounds and
geographic localities. Despite the
claims of neoconservatives or nationalists, openness to alternative life views is
essential for the newer technologies. In
turn, they emanate from different cultural backgrounds.
Therefore,
businesses appreciate localities that provide the kinds of skills and outlooks necessary
to fill corresponding jobs. They need to
secure the sorts of talent from a variety of places – both domestic and foreign
places. In turn, to pull such diversity to
the workplace, tolerance is mandatory.
Finally, according to Jost and Mentovich,
a productive time perspective needs to be applied in which all this
accumulation of talent and the other qualities can come together in real, as
opposed to virtual, places. Skype conferences
cannot substitute for real communities inhabiting real places. Success depends on worksites where real
relationships emerge and that development takes time, time to build the trust,
creativity, and tolerance the other qualities either represent or upon which
they depend.
Is this true? It
makes intuitive sense. It is presented
in a logical order. But is there enough
evidence to say it is a dependable view of modern economic realities? Given the rise of more nationalistic policies
and politics both in the US and Europe, one will probably be able to observe a
great deal of real time evidence as various nations today are looking inward
and are shunning a global perspective and bias.
Will such moves negatively affect economic growth? According to the model described here, it
should.
For
example, Great Britain is attempting to drop out of the European Union and the
US, in its foreign policy, seems to be similarly looking inward. Will Britishers and Americans pay an economic
price if they go and turn away from more global policies? That will depend on the degree to which they abandon
internationally organized economic activities and developments. Stay tuned.
[1] See “What You Need to Know about the Structure of
Process,” Corwin Connect, October 15, 2016, accessed October 14, 2019, https://corwin-connect.com/2016/11/need-know-structure-process/ .
[2] John T. Jost and Avital Mentovich, “J-Curve
Hypothesis,” Sociology and Political Science, n. d., accessed October 14, 2019,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/J-curve-hypothesis .
[3] Mikael Krogerus and Roman Tschappeler, The Change
Book: How Things Happen (New York,
NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2015).
No comments:
Post a Comment