What is Knowledge?

In this article, I explore the question: what is knowledge? and introduce the branch of philosophy called epistemology. My intention in writing the article is to encourage you to think deeply about your philosophy of practice, whether you are a coach, academic or sport scientist. Whilst the original article was targeted towards a sport and exercise science teaching context, the content has broad application to many disciplines.

What is knowledge? This is a much debated question in philosophy, which has as much relevance today as when ancient Greeks such as Plato and Socrates debated it nearly 2,500 years ago. In this article I will explore this question, introduce the branch of philosophy called epistemology and suggest why these subjects are important in the sport and exercise sciences today. Have you ever considered what knowledge is or how to define the word? In a recently conducted straw poll of academics at a higher education institution (n=20) I found that only one got close to a definition that would pass at GCSE level and the other 19 hadn’t previously considered the question. A year previously, I faced the same question and in trying to answer it I discovered a whole branch of philosophy called epistemology. Whilst my explorations confirmed many of my biases of philosophy being seemingly abstract and complex, they also identified how epistemology is fundamental to science and learning. The definition of Webb and Collins (2016) captures this well:

“Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge and the processes of knowing and learning. Shaping our view on what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, our epistemology is thereby fundamental to how we perceive, think, make decisions and act.”

Epistemologists tend to focus on the propositional, ‘know what’. The original question I posed is ‘what is knowledge?’ This is a very complex question with few philosophers providing a better definition than Plato himself, who considered knowledge to be justified true belief. A more contemporary epistemological question is ‘does it work in the real world?’

The famous French philosopher Rene Descartes considered different levels of knowledge from conviction (persuasio) to rigorous (scientia). In science, theorising helps us develop beliefs. Empirical research is a process that we use to provide justification to support or dismiss such beliefs. Research methods are the tools we use to get closer to the truth through objective reasoning.

As sport and exercise scientists, we typically work in the areas of natural science such as physiology, biomechanics or psychology. Within each of these disciplines there are research methods and language conventions that we use in conceptualising knowledge and truth (McFee, 2010), i.e. we perceive, think, make decisions and act in ways that are consistent the conventions of our discipline. Many scientists use reductionist methods to examine natural phenomena; indeed controlling for external influences is a central concern in many studies. These data are often then validated using dualistic decision rules e.g. P < 0.05 to reach decisions. Others may use more Bayesian probabilities, magnitude based inference or qualitative methods to express ‘degrees of belief’.

In my lecturing role on a professional MSc programme in performance coaching, I am in the enviable position of supporting students who are also expert coaches with hunger for knowledge. Most do not have an academic background; however, they are advanced problem-solvers who construct their knowledge and make decisions using more heuristic processes. They will observe and experience phenomena in a ‘real-world’ setting, experimenting through trial-and-error, using a variety of sources of information to check their understanding. However, the empirical effectiveness of any new approach is the over-arching decision rule.

Perhaps one outcome of Descartes knowledge continuum is that many of us are guilty of believing that knowledge constructed using scientific methods is more rigorous and valid than wisdom developed through applied practice. However, I argue that intellectual rigour lies within the mind of an individual and that rigour should not be defined by whether they are a coach or an academic researcher. The world is not a dualistic one but is nuanced and full of ambiguity. To better understand it often requires a more pragmatic and strategic ‘bricolage’ approach to knowledge acquisition. Einstein was able to conceptualise complex, dynamic and ambiguous systems without losing sight of the inherent simplicity of the universe. Such an approach in constructing knowledge is one that we should all aspire to.

In a recent article in The Sport and Exercise Scientist by Aldous et al. (2016) they raised the important point that students often lacked the willingness to develop the skill of knowledge synthesis. I believe the source of this challenge is an epistemic one in which there is a systemic and tacit assumption that knowledge can be deposited on others simply by sharing information. Knowledge and information are not the same thing. Simply ‘depositing information’ with others, who may lack the pre-existing intellectual scaffold to synthesise that knowledge is unlikely to be a successful strategy that leads to knowledge. However, ones approach to learning and teaching will be quite different if you believe that knowledge exists within the mind of an individual and it must therefore be constructed within that mind to exist (Buehl & Fives, 2009). For example, it could be argued that an academic journal does not contain knowledge; it is simply a vessel of information. For this information to become knowledge, the reader must justifiably believe that it is true and be able to relate it to their own practice and/or perception of reality.

Students who have previously been schooled in rote memorisation may possess plenty of tacit knowledge, i.e. they remember ‘stuff’ and have been trained to accept that what their teacher tells them is true. However, with such a naïve epistemology, knowledge construction and thus knowledge synthesis is incredibly problematic when dealing with abstract or complex concepts.

For us to have impact through our practice, whether it is applied, teaching or research, we must consider how we construct our knowledge and how our end users construct theirs. We must also consider the possibility that our knowledge lacks sophistication if it has been constructed through too narrow a theoretical or empirical lens. For example, I have previously taught training periodisation as a deterministic model. However, the more I tried to apply its principles to my own practice, the more I found they did not work - a transition from information to knowledge. Similarly, I spent countless hours searching for metabolic thresholds in gas exchange data without considering the possibility that they occurred on an ambiguous continuum rather than at exact points. The sophistication in my knowledge came through ‘real-world’ application in which I found that text book constructed knowledge was not in fact true.

Maggio (2014) describes his experiences with the Kwara’se people, a group of ‘primitive’ Solomon Islanders. These people learn through a process of teaching called ‘fa’amanata’ang’, which involves passing direct experiences from generation to generation. Children learn how to be ‘human’ through night time storytelling and watching their elders. Such learning is deeply imbedded in the Kwara’se culture. The Kwara’se are sophisticated learners in that they focus on learning what:

- Is important to them

- Both the teacher and learner can relate to

- Is directly relevant to the environment in which they live, i.e. how to survive and maintain social order.

Of course their environment is relatively simple by ‘modern’ standards and I have no doubt that they also believe some ridiculous things too. However, such beliefs may be no worse than illusory concepts and inherent biases that many ‘more educated’ people believe in.

Wisdom, the sum of knowledge, experience and good judgement, all contribute to the scienta discussed by Descartes. Knowledge constructed through scientific method is only one part of that equation. Humans worked out how to learn effectively many thousands of years ago. Whilst the world is now inherently more complex, the principles of learning have changed little. Plato taught us that knowledge acquisition and synthesis requires not only information recall but cognitive construction of justifiable true beliefs.

Independent of the locus of truth of information inputs and where it comes from, the quality of engagement, the level of emotional connection and individual epistemologies are fundamental to human learning. The Self-determination Theory of Deci and Ryan (2000) is a useful tool in this regard. It suggests we should consider the principles of relatedness, autonomy and competency when engaging with others. Of course, as scientists we must present information that is plausible, accurate and context specific to have impact. Concepts, theories and opinions are valuable in knowledge construction with empirical research allowing us to get closer to the truth and ‘real-world’ application. However, ethically we should also consider the dangers of creating ever increasing circles of complexity through tautology and the effect of accepting theories when they have not been adequately tested in the ‘real world’

Aldous, D., Miles, A. & Tong, R. (2016). Teaching and learning issues in sport and exercise science. The Sport and Exercise Scientist, 47, 26-27.

Webb, V., Collins, D. & Cruickshank, A. (2016). Aligning the talent pathway: exploring the role and mechanisms of coherence in development. Journal of Sports Sciences, 0414, 1-9

Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.

Maggio, R. (2014). The Anthropology of Storytelling and the Storytelling of Anthropology. Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology, 5(2), 89-106.

McFee, G. (2010). Ethics, Knowledge and Truth in Sports Research. New York: Routledge.

Dr Andy Kirkland is a lecturer in sports coaching at the University of Stirling. He is a chartered scientist, a BASES accredited sport and exercise scientist and a triathlon coach.