All knowledge produced through any way of knowing or knowledge produced in any area of knowledge is valuable. But this question asked here makes the assumption that certain kinds of knowledge is more important than or is given more value as compared to other kinds of knowledge.
Knowledge produced in the same area of knowledge can be perceived and valued in different ways depending on the how easy or difficult it was to acquire the knowledge. But to what extent is the word ‘difficult’ subjective? And what makes a certain way of acquiring the knowledge harder than another? When it comes to Natural sciences, knowledge that we gain in this area could be considered difficult as it requires experimentation and the gathering of data in order to gain knowledge while in the human sciences the reliance on observation could lead to an easier collection of knowledge however the value of the knowledge gained by either cannot be directly compared.
In Natural science and human sciences research plays a very important role in the gathering of the information needed to produce the knowledge. The methods of research conducted to gather information differ largely from one another. Some of these research methods might be considered easier to conduct since it would require less effort and time to set up when compared to other methods. So does this mean that the information produced through the research methods that are comparatively easier to conduct, is less valuable?
Regardless of the difficulty that the researcher underwent in order to obtain the knowledge, the information gathered from the research is however just as valuable to the research and in some cases the information obtained easily, might in fact, prove more useful to the researcher. Like for example, observation could be considered as a more time consuming and labor intensive method of research when trying to gather information from a large group of participants in an experiment. It would take longer for the researcher to observe each of the person taking part in the experiment individually and then it interpreting this qualitative information would further delay the process of production of knowledge, hence overall being a highly time consuming and arduous process. These factors would comprehensively make observation a more difficult method of research and hence the knowledge produced through this method of research would be considered more difficulty obtained. However, this does not mean that the knowledge produced would be more valued. Observation as a method of research has a few flaws in itself. For example the research could fall victim of the Hawthorne effect, which states that participants when aware that they are being observed, act in a different than usual manner.
At the same time, here it can be said that a comparatively easier method of research such as that of an interview or a survey through a questionnaire, with the same large group of participants, might prove to be more useful to the researcher than observation. An interview or survey can be considered as an easier method of research since it would be less time consuming to talk to the participants and directly ask them questions pertaining to the research and hence receiving more relevant and directly utilizable data. The information obtained from surveys would be quantitative and hence easier to interpret than qualitative data, and this makes surveys a comparatively easier method of research. From this it can be said the knowledge produced through the information or data obtained through an interview or survey is more easily produced than the knowledge produced through observation. A personal example of this would be the research preceding my business internal assessment. In order to get the appropriate information, I conducted interviews and passed on questionnaires to my client company, consequently receiving the information I would require to produce the knowledge in my internal assessment research paper. However, if I were to use observation as a my method of obtaining data, it would be more difficult and time consuming, but the data I would obtain from the observation would be just as valuable as the data gained through the interview and questionnaire, or perhaps less valuable since observation is affected by numerous factors, as discussed above.
We may regard knowledge gained through shared knowledge as of being higher and more valuable than that obtained personally.
Knowledge can exist in the form of personal knowledge or shared knowledge. The value that is given to the knowledge in each of these would depend on various factors including how much difficulty we perceive that knowledge was to been obtain. Most of the areas of knowledge consist of information that could be considered as shared knowledge since they are structured and was produced by a large group of people. Knowledge that exists in these natural sciences or human sciences is given comparatively more importance than knowledge that we might have gained directly through our own sense perception or imagination. In shared knowledge, such as that of a subject like physics or computer science, numerous people have and continue to contribute to and add on to the already existing information. The knowledge in these areas can be considered as being certain and more reliable since it wasn’t formulated by just one individual but worked on by several people and is now shared by everyone. In Human sciences, the theories and concepts that are taught have been worked upon for several years, disproved and proved, through reason, and has now been accepted. A considerable amount of hard work was put into achieving this knowledge and hence can be said that it was produced with difficulty. These factors together encompass the reason we might value shared knowledge over knowledge produced through personal experiences.
An alternative perspective on this issue of value given to knowledge in shared versus personal is that personal knowledge is just as valuable if not more than that of shared knowledge. Personal knowledge is obtained through the experiences of an individual person, and is formed over time and subconsciously molded by their personal approaches to situations and what that individual gains from it. These factors might make personal knowledge easier to obtain since it does not require conscious effort but it is something every individual forms as a part of their daily experiences. But the knowledge we produce through our own personal experiences might be more valuable to us as individuals since it we are personally connected to and forms the basis of our individual perspectives. Personal knowledge also consists of skills and procedural knowledge, which is the knowledge on how to perform a certain task. All these elements together that form personal knowledge is essentially necessary, and hence is given just as much value to that of shared knowledge.
The implications of this could be that be that when we perceive knowledge from any area of knowledge or even from our own personal experiences, it s important to consider the subject matter of the situation and of the knowledge being gained, rather than looking at the level of difficulty behind the production of said knowledge, since the arduousness of the production of knowledge is not the only determining factor of the value attributed to this knowledge.
From the examples discussed above and as a knower my perspective on this issue is that it that the value attributed to knowledge must be independent of the level of difficulty required to produce it. But the subjectivity of the word difficult also plays a very important role in further understanding this knowledge issue since what might be perceived as being difficult by me, might not necessarily be the same for another person. Hence, with regard to the ambiguity of what might be perceived as difficult or easy, I think that it is necessary value knowledge based our perspective, rather than being influenced how by vigorous the production of the knowledge was.