The Construction of Knowledge in Organizations: Asking the Right Questions about the Challenger

Summary:

In the article "The constructions knowledge in organizations: asking the right questions about the challenger", Dorothy Winson explains that it is hard to have theoretical understanding of what is clear.

Winson starts this article talking about the Challenger accident. The challenger exploded due to faulty o-rings. The reason reason behind this accident is not known, but "people knew, or should have known, but failed to act" (7). Winson argues that the explanations given are weak because what is being asked is also weak. Here's where she also states that "the difficulty we have in bringing our theroretical understanding of the uncertain, socially conditioned natured of discourse to bear on concrete" (8). It is difficult to know something and pass the information on.

The author explains that knowledge is characterized by two important elements. "FIrst, knowledge seems to be based on evidence" (8). "Second, knowledge is regarded as certain" (8). Winson then introduces "logical positivism," which means that if there is a doubt an idea, then there is really no knowledge.

Winson then explains why people cannot pass information on. The reason behind is that "knowledge is created by simple exposure to a message which duplicates itself more or less unambiguously within members of an audience" (13). What the author is trying to show is that one has to have knowledge and enough evidence in order to pass on information. This way, there wont be any misunderstandings, and communication failure will be prevented.

Synthesis:

I agree with the author because I do believe that knowledge is very important. Specially when passing it on, because if we're not accurate, then everyone else will get this concept wrong. It's true when he says, "explanations are weak because our questions are weak" (8). This shows that if we don't have a concrete understandment, then everything else will also be "weak".