Responding to Dorothy Winsor

Winsor’s article describes knowledge in a retroactive and present tense. She describes knowledge as “certain: if someone is unsure of an idea, we don’t usually call the idea knowledge.” By using the example of the faulty O-rings that led to the explosion of the Challenger, Winsor indicates that evidence does not surmise knowledge. The events leading up to the incident weren’t just caused by a culmination of ignorance, circumstantial factors show that MTI formed a taskforce exclusively to test the O-rings prior to the launch. The employees’ awareness then leads to a validation of social influence of knowledge; does social acceptance strengthen knowledge? Or does social acceptance increase because we are aware that knowledge “exists”?

To better articulate her arguments and criticisms for social constructivism and logical positivism, Winsor introduces the idea of “Truth Will Out Device” which states that the truth will eventually be recognized by a consensus of what is correct. Of course, the downside of this theory is that knowledge can only be categorized as such based on a retroactive perspective and based on the time upon which an idea is looked back on, even wrong facts can be conceptualized as knowledge.

As Winsor analyses how knowledge exists, she describes the passing of knowledge as the “conduit model of communication.” A misleading representation in the sense that information transposed from one individual to another is evidence, not knowledge. Despite logos and ethos being present in the exchange one individual’s pathos may differ, altering the perception he takes on factual evidence. The lack of a “capacity to impress their reality on the reader” leaves evidence without presence. It is important for the second individual to accept the gravity of the situation in order for the evidence to become undisputed knowledge.

Winsor, Dorothy. (1990). “The Construction of Knowledge in Organizations: Asking the Right Questions About the Challenger.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 4.2 (1990): 7-20. Web