Information and the understanding of objective knowledge: a phenomenological study
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-08-2022-0171 |
| Published date | 04 October 2022 |
| Date | 04 October 2022 |
| Pages | 683-702 |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Records management & preservation,Document management,Classification & cataloguing,Information behaviour & retrieval,Collection building & management,Scholarly communications/publishing,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management,Information & communications technology,Internet |
| Author | Liangzhi Yu |
Information and the understanding
of objective knowledge:
a phenomenological study
Liangzhi Yu
Department of Information Resource Management, Nankai University,
Tianjin, China
Abstract
Purpose –This study aims to investigate how understanding of objective knowledge (as defined by Karl
Popper) is experienced by the knowledge recipient and the role that information plays in such understanding.
Design/methodology/approach –Husserl’s phenomenological approach is applied to a sample of
undergraduate students’lived experiences of understanding, collected through diaries and interviews.
Findings –This study finds that understanding of certain objective knowledge develops as the knowledge
appears and eventually gives itself to consciousness through the information conveying it; different degrees of
givenness of the knowledge in consciousnessis experienced by the mind as different levels of understanding; a
relatively solid understanding is achieved when the knowledge emerges as an erected knowledge-object in
consciousness. Understanding of complex objective knowledge requires not only adequate amount (dose) of
information but also corroboration of manifold information sources and formats.
Research limitations/implications –The findings of this study apply to the understanding of objective
knowledge as defined by Popper. Further research is needed to examine other types of understanding.
Practical implications –This study informs educators and LIS professionalsthe typical phases in the lived
experience of understanding objective knowledge, and the role of information in facilitating the understanding;
it urges the twoprofessions to take such experience into consideration when designing courses and information
products/services, respectively.
Originality/value –Drawing on Husserl’s phenomenological approach, this study provides an intuitive
account of understanding of objective knowledge, and clarifies a number of conceptual confusions withinLIS
concerning understanding. It may also have some cross-disciplinary relevance for reflecting education
objectives and explaining the Aha! experience in psychology.
Keywords Understanding, Information experience, Phenomenology, Information access, Objective
knowledge, Aha! experience
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Within library and information science (LIS), the experience of understanding has only
recently emerged as a focus for study and has, so far, been particularly examined by only a
small group of LIS scholars (Bawden, 2012;Gorichanaz, 2018,2020a,b). However, it can be
argued that, as a consciousness activity or a mental state (depending upon whether the term
is used as a verb or noun), understanding is implicated in the discussion of various LIS topics.
In discussing the concept of information, for instance, many LIS scholars (e.g. Belkin and
Robertson, 1976;Brookes, 1980;Buckland, 1991;Pratt, 1977) associate information with the
change of mental state or a feeling of being informed, and associate being informed with the
development of understanding. Pratt (1977), for example, sees one’s understanding of the
content of a message as tantamount to the person’s being informed by the message. Meadow
and Yuan (1997) develop an understanding-centered, four-dimensional framework to explain
Understanding
of objective
knowledge
683
This study is funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71974103). The
author would like to thank Dr. Yijun Liu, a PhD student at Nankai University when this study was
conducted, for her assistance in data collection. The author would also like to thank the referees for their
very insightful comments.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0022-0418.htm
Received 5 August 2022
Revised 31 August 2022
Accepted 20 September 2022
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 79 No. 3, 2023
pp. 683-702
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/JD-08-2022-0171
the transformation from data to information and to knowledge: dimension one is the extent of
understanding of the meaning of individual symbols within a text by its recipient (semiotics);
dimension two is the extent of understanding of the structure connecting basic symbols
(syntax); dimension three is the extent of understanding of the complete text; and, dimension
four is the degree of understanding of the content.
Taking LIS’s relationship with understanding one step further, a number of recent studies
call for LIS to take understanding as a focus of study on its own (Bawden and Robinson,
2016a,b). Building upon Ackoff’s (1989) famous D-I-K-U-W model, where understanding is
assigned a unique position in the transformation chain from data to wisdom, these scholars
argue that understanding differs from, and is at a higher level than, knowledge; it should be
taken as the epistemic aim of LIS professional activities. They also argue that targeting
understanding would broaden LIS’s views to novel modalities of information (in addition to
factual information) that facilitate understanding, such as experience, feelings, affect, bodies,
things, etc.
Whether being treated as an ancillary topic facilitating the study of information and
knowledge, or being regarded as an issue for study on its own, understanding remains little-
known to LIS. As an ancillary topic, it has not received systematic and extensive explication.
As a distinct research focus, it has only just begun to be investigated in significant depth; its
nature, condition and relationship with other LIS objects (data, information, knowledge and
literature) are yet to be examined.
This study focuses on one type of understanding –that of objective knowledge as defined
by Popper (1979). As this brief introductory section has already indicated, and the literature
review section will further demonstrate, the term understanding has been used to refer to
fairly heterogeneous consciousness activities and mental states [consider, for example, the
four dimensions of understanding demarcated by Meadow and Yuan (1997)]. Given that
different typesof understanding are likely to have different implications for LIS,it is advisable
that they be examined separately. Understanding of existing objective knowledge is arguably
one of the most widespread intellectual endeavors for humans. This is the understandingthat
students strive to achieve throughout their education, that scholars are supposed to
accomplish before engaging in their own knowledge creation and thatprofessionals attempt
to develop prior to innovating professional practices. By focusing on this type of
understanding, this study aims to ascertain exactly what characterizes the understanding
of objective knowledge and how information facilitates the formation of such understanding.
For the sake of easy expression, this paper will use objective knowledge as a countable noun,
where one objective knowledge refers to one unit of intellectual creation, such as a concept, a
proposition, a theory, a law, a model or a systematic philosophical thought, etc. Itcan be as
small and solo as a concept and it can be as big and complex as a philosophical thought.
2. Studies on understanding within and beyond LIS: related literature
2.1 Cross-disciplinary research of human understanding
Issues regarding how the human mind grasps meanings, ideas, knowledge from symbols,
texts, speeches, sounds, things, phenomena, etc., and thereby develops understanding, has
instigated ever-lasting scholarship across a wide range of domains. Due to the spread and size
of the accumulated literature, it is impossible to provide a comprehensive review of related
research. What is attempted, here, is a very brief sketch of the related fields concerned with
understanding; even this has to be done in a very broad manner.
Hermeneuticsis perhaps one of the oldestfields in which inquiriesabout understanding are
conducted. Hermeneutics is initially concerned with the deciphering of signs and the
interpretation of their meanings. The earliest scholarly work of hermeneutics is credited to
Aristotle’sDeInterpretatione,which discusses therelationship betweenlanguage and thoughts
JD
79,3
684
To continue reading
Request your trial