Knowing What to Do

Knowing & Doing

Is knowing needed prior to doing? In general: yes. You have to know certain things in advance whenever you take action. But apart from this wider taken-for-granted knowing, it is perfectly possible to make a decision without any knowing at all. For example, a decision based on the toss of a coin has no basis in any sort of knowing. Blindly following instructions under the "you are not paid to think" school of management actively rejects knowing as a requirement.

For empiricist inquirers (PH'2L1) and empirical decision-makers (PH'1L2), knowing is a sine qua non for deciding as well as doing: it is the only sensible way to proceed. Other decision-making methods will also support knowing, even if the facts are not the central core of choosing. Nevertheless most inquirers, and perhaps all, are only vaguely aware of how knowing structures doing.

Recall that the Determinants of Achievement (PH'1CK) are modelled as a Tree whose contextual levels (L5-L7) are inquiry-based, and whose content levels (L1-L4) are action-based.

The Knowing What To Do Arena is not necessarily the best approach to deciding, nor does it focus on achievement. It is about drawing conclusions. Specifically this points to what course of action is likely to succeed in a particular situation. This unique taxonomic structure brings ways of knowing into the picture that might be otherwise unexpected, as explained below.

Knowing to Structure Doing

As explained in a previous topic, Arenas depend on applying the 4-level Style hierarchy. Each Arena overlaps two adjacent Methods, in this case Empirical-L'1 and Analytic-L'2, and the result is shown in the diagram below.

The above diagram reveals a 7-level hierarchy. This hierarchy involves 2 levels/types of the originating typology of research methods and every level in this new hierarchy is also a method. However, these types/methods are distinct from the sub-types (styles) presented in the Introduction because the focus has shifted here to informing choice.

The methods of the Principal Typologies manifested as mentalities/approaches , which were sharply distinguished and mostly incompatible. The present methods naturally influence each other, and so I will refer to these level-entities-methods as "ways" i.e. "ways to know what to do" or "ways to inform a choice".

Understanding Informed Action

The framework for informing choice will be developed as follows:

  • Naming of the ways to inform a choice with details of their function and distinguishing properties to reveal the natural hierarchy and provide the basis for further analyses.
  • Plotting the ways to inform a choice on a Typology Essences Table (TET) after identifying the psychosocial axes. This non-hierarchical layout highlights similarities and differences amongst the ways.
  • Using the TET layout to specify the Spiral trajectory that progressively includes all ways in order to strengthen confidence in a choice.
  • Considering the knowing process dynamically to generate a Tree showing influences between the ways. The Tree operates regardless of how much confidence has been developed.
  • Developing the Structural Hierarchy to reveal how action can be or should be organised when the focus is on knowing.
  • Developing the Tree that is revealed by the Structural Hierarchy: exact nature unknown at the time of writing.

ClosedResearch Background

Originally posted: 11 May 2023.