Reaching Conclusions: Knowing Arenas

Arenas in THEE

Domains in THEE are mainly about endeavours to meet a specific primal need. For the INQUIRY Domain, the need is knowledge.

However, each Domain also seems to engage with other Domains directly in relation to their Primal Need, which means in this case:

Investigation reveals that there is a system of frameworks in each of the above topic areas, which are called Arenas.

Knowing in these arenas is not so much about producing knowledge but about reaching conclusions at a point in time.

Architectural principles for these frameworks are explained here. Draft versions of the 7 sets of frameworks are provided in the Taxonomy Notes.

3 Varieties of Knowing

Knowing is normally required in endeavours, large and small. The endeavour framework-RH offers sufficient guidance here, and no special frameworks for inquiry-RHL2 are required.

Knowing to produce knowledge beyond what is required for any specific endeavour requires use of one or more Research Methods PH'2. Such knowledge is specialized, conjecture-based, intrinsically generalizable and usually systematically and repeatedly checked.

However, there is a third variety of knowing which is about reaching defensible conclusions in a dynamic evolving environment. Such conclusions are commonly required in situations where the psychosocial pressure of certainty comes to the fore.

These situations are usually social: because whenever others are affected by the choice being made, they naturally want:

(a) certainty that the conclusions are correct, and
(b) explanation of how the conclusion was reached.

As noted above, the conclusions relate to choices in the 7 Domains:

Q1: Knowing to enable achievement (ACTION)

This is about «knowing what to do» and comes into play when it important to be confident about actions by making an informed choice.

Organisations (PH'5Q2) are social entities that are naturally under a psychosocial pressure for certainty. So governing boards that are expected to be responsible for success and to explain their decisions, typically reach conclusions in this way.

Because this arena is based on data, empiricists would claim this framework specifies the correct way to make decisions everywhere and always. However, decision-making is part of the ACTION domain, and not all decisions need to be explained or justified in terms of data. The empiricist method -PH'1L1 turns out to be just one of 7 possible methods. See more here.

Q2: Knowing to enable knowledge (INQUIRY)

This is about «knowing what to study» and comes into play in relation to ensuring that researchers engage in a contributing study, spending their time and research funds wisely.

Academic disciplines (PH'5Q3) operate naturally under a psychosocial pressure for acceptability. They shape the direction of research through informal mechanisms like prestige, popularity, habit, public opinion. Especially for smaller sub-disciplines, letting researchers follow their own inclinations is not necessarily the sensible option from a disciplinary viewpoint. If money is at stake, then academic freedom is quite unacceptable.

Q3: Knowing to enable depiction (CHANGE)

This is about «knowing what to change» and comes into play when the change involves others whose compliance cannot be taken for granted. Such change needs to be premeditated if it is to be promoted successfully.

Q4: Knowing to enable individuality (EXPERIENCE)

This is about «knowing what to think» and comes into play when it is necessary to form a view and be prepared to adhere to that view despite changes in circumstances or the opinions of others. Such a view can then become a sound basis for action or choice.

This view may be changed, but any new view needs to have the same quality or you should opt out from addressing the issue. If the view is permeated with uncertainty and doubt, then it will not serve its purpose.

Q5: Knowing to enable association (COMMUNICATION)

This is about «knowing what to say» and comes into play when it is important to manage a group. So "saying" refers to authoritative pronouncements. Whatever is said may shape and potentially permanently alter the shared reality (PH'5C) around which the group's identity and cohesion is built. So the concern in what to say is to be authoritative.

Q6: Knowing to enable governing (PURPOSE)

This is about «knowing what is important» and comes into play when a situations emerges in which there are new requirements to meet essential needs.

Q7: Knowing to enable effectiveness (WILLINGNESS)

This is about «knowing what to create» and comes into plat in relation to start-up enterprises and similar risky projects.

Originally drafted: 21-May-2023.