Should the Knowledge- Based Economy be a Savant or a Sage?

Wisdom and Socially Intelligent Innovation. D. Rooney and B. McKenna. Prometheus. Vol. 23, No. 3, Sept 2005.
Type of paper – article
Audience – academics, Public policy professionals.
This article explores the idea that knowledge without wisdom leads to social dysfunction and cataclysm, making public policy the context of their enquiry. They explore the Aristotelian idea of practical wisdom and briefly acknowledge an Eastern perspective (the Chinese “I Ching” and Persian philosopher Avicenna). The authors use the taxonomy devised by an eighteenth century Aristotelian (Giambattista Vico) that provides a framework of four intellectual types ranging from the Savant (imprudent) to the Sage (wise people) to explore how the administrative complexities of contemporary life can be approached from a knowledge point of view. They postulate that a knowledge economy managed without wisdom is deficient and can lead to cataclysmic outcomes (they cite the dot-com crash, I am thinking of the GFC) and that policy level discourse must contain social and ethical considerations, or the “knowledge” is wanting. Otherwise we are at the mercy of rationalist, functionalist, utilitarian and technocratic driven short term gains.

The article is very technical in its philosophical approach and is a hard read. However the argument is compelling. The savant approaches ethics slowly and most often fails. The sage has both practical and theoretical wisdom and makes plans for the long term. This they argue is a humanistic approach and is better for social policy in complex technological societies in the long term. Perhaps this assertion has been proved correct by the economic events of the past year?

Wisdom as an Attribute of Knowledge Work

Article: Rooney, D., B. McKenna, and F. D'Agostino, Wisdom as an Attribute of Knowledge Work

Type of article: Position paper

Audience: Academics, Knowledge Management Professionals

Focus: To define wisdom within the dimensions of psychology and philosophy and its role within knowledge management.

Summary:
Wisdom in the context of decision making is needed because judgment is easily clouded, influence misused, ethics less considered. The authors assert that wisdom is well defined by approaching it both psychologically and philosophically but affirms the approaches are different yet commonalities exist. Further wisdom embodies rational and transcendent forms of knowledge.

From a psychological perspective wisdom coordinates knowledge and judgments. While philosophically wisdom encompasses the social dimensions of shared understanding using adjectives such as prudent, sensory, visceral, worldliness, and tolerance.

To be rational is to reason for the purpose of attainment. Whereas to be transcendent is to know what is possible without rationality.

The primary objective of the article is to debate wisdom’s role in the context of knowledge management. According to Van Loon, decision making becomes increasingly difficult as the volume of sources and types of information grow and vary but Rooney suggests that perhaps wisdom shall prevail.

‘Practical Wisdom and Philosophy’ is the authors focus, from which a framework evolved:

• Ethics – humane tolerance
• Aesthetics – communicative eloquence
• Ontology – classificatory assumptions either explicit (definitions, codes, manuals etc) or implicit (assumptions or implied through practice)
• Mindlessness – to act without regard for routinized ruts, organisational coherence and predetermined destinations.
  

The author concludes warning the reader of potential pitfalls because of the inadequate theorization of knowledge.

Review:
The article’s psychological and philosophical bent aroused interest providing a multi-faceted perspective on wisdom and its application thereof. The authors substantiate their arguments citing authors of varied backgrounds. The article is aptly titled to peak interest from knowledge management specialist curious about the role of wisdom. An interesting read but the article left me wanting to know more. As aptly suggested by the authors how do you measure knowledge, exploit intellectual capital and use computer-based knowledge management systems versus applying wisdom, ethics and imagination.