Have We Become Wiser?
15 September 2006
Type/Items(s): Workshops, Discussions & short presentations, Scientific Sessions, Networking & Social
Submitted by: Erkan Alpman (ICVolunteers)
Contributors: Beatrice Nordin (ICVolunteers), Randy Schmieder (MCART)
|
Who has not felt shy engaging a simple conversation with the cute/handsome neighbor at the bar, albeit the place has been designed for it? Many roadblocks hinder straightforward communication and spread of knowledge. In essence, human beings procrastinate, taking the extra step to establish a dialogue. Partcipants unite to debate how to foster dialogue and free up knowledge from instrumentalisation, but more could actively take the step towards a reflection about dialogue.
"People actually want to talk," says Markus Karner, of Singapore Management University, but need the right environment and structures for this purpose. According to Karner, the best "facilitation" structure should include diverse arrays of people, representing different backgrounds and disciplines, this structure should be made comfortable to reach and attend. Easily predictable roadblocks such as obstacles in language, feelings of exposure, and feelings of being "out of habitat" should be removed. In other words, access to cross-disciplinary dialogue should be made as simple and secure as possible.
|
Participants from 34 countries join the discussions of WKD to discuss knowledge dialogue. Image: V. Krebs, ICVolunteers |
|
According to Veronica Boix-Mansilla of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, another key factor is a "culture of dialogue". But apparently, such a culture does not happen naturally. Students' capacities to bridge multi-disciplinary thinking must be nurtured through appropriate education. For Mansilla, it is imperative that one should understand other sciences' ways of thinking and their specific epistemologies. In other words, Mansilla strongly advocates integrating knowledge and modes of thinking of other disciplines to enable the creation of adequate methods and solutions. For this purpose, a four-dimensional method of analysis has been developed: one should be able to question, a) the purpose of knowledge, b) its grounding, c) its leverage and, d) its positioning in the "global landscape".
Out with the old, but keep it simple
Fellow speakers Akimasa Sumi from University of Tokyo and Karuvannur Mohanan, National University of Singapore, actively support the abandoning the traditional boundaries between academic faculties and the creating multi-disciplinary research structures. Knowledge and issues needs to be structured, fostering a broad sense of academic enquiry.
But what about possible negative drift of such widely open dialogue and sharing of knowledge? Both Mark Freed, Central Michigan University, and Wei Wu (Nanyang Technological University) decry the danger of instrumentalisation of knowledge and research by other spheres like politics and industry. Increased pressure is applied on scientists by industrialists running after quick returns and techno-nationalists for purpose-oriented research.
Can we prevent misuse of technologies by unscrupulous actors by setting formal structures and clear and robust rules of the game? Can we prevent the hijacking of knowledge for destructive purposes?
The knowledge that humanity has to deal with has direct consequences on our future, concludes "Round-Table" host Dr. Kiyoshi Kurokawa, President of the Science Council of Japan. How will we transmit it to future generations? When are we going to ask ourselves "have we become wiser"?
Dialogue is a fragile wealth, not easily used but easily abused. Whatever the solution chosen, whatever the technique, someday we will have to "walk the talk". Let us just hope it will not be too late for mankind. |
|
