.

Teaching and Learning Resource (TLR)

1. Title

Classifying Knowledge Claims

2. Keywords

Knowledge claims / claims-making; Positive / normative statements; Primary / secondary sources.

3. Introduction

Knowledge - particularly scientific knowledge - is frequently presented uncritically to students at undergraduate level. For example, in What is this thing called science? (Open University Press, Milton Keynes: 1988), Alan Chalmers characterises - and then goes on to criticise - the 'common sense' view of science as follows:

Scientific knowledge is proven knowledge. Scientific theories are derived in some rigorous way from the facts of experience acquired by observation and experiment. Science is based on what we can see and hear and touch, etc. Personal opinion or preferences and speculative imaginings have no place in science. Science is objective. Scientific knowledge is reliable knowledge because it is objectively proven knowledge. (p.1)

However, many historians, philosophers and sociologists of knowledge and science take a very different view. For example, historians point to the radical changes in scientific understanding that have occurred over the years, and ask if we can be sure that similarly radical changes will not occur in years to come; philosophers have raised profound questions about the relationship between ideas in our minds and the nature of external reality, and about the nature of proof and causality; and sociologists have questioned the objectivity of knowledge by investigating the links between knowledge and the psychological, institutional and socio-political contexts of the scientists who produce that knowledge.

There are grounds, therefore, for viewing knowledge - including scientific knowledge - as being fundamentally problematic; and for talking about knowledge not in terms of 'truth' but, instead, in terms of 'knowledge claims' or 'claims-making'. These knowledge claims are produced by particular people, at particularly times and places, and under particular circumstances. They may be advanced with greater or lesser degrees of confidence; they may be more or less widely accepted or contested; they may be subject to more of less radical transformation over the course of time. And, importantly, they may be more or less objective, but - according to some - they can never be entirely objective.

This 'problematised' view of knowledge seems particularly applicable in the environmental field. This is because environmental knowledge claims are generally concerned with human and natural systems, whose interactions are:

• usually complex;
• rarely localised in terms of space or time;
• constantly changing - sometimes quite rapidly - as a result of quantitative and qualitative changes in human activity (eg the development of novel processes and substances).

Moreover, these knowledge claims are very often produced within a context of hotly contested social and environmental values and competing economic and political interests.

It is little wonder, then, that so much 'environmental knowledge' can be seen as provisional and uncertain; and is so often subject to contestation. It is important, therefore, that students are able to think critically about the knowledge claims they 'consume' - and about the knowledge claims they 'produce'. In order to do this, they need - in the first place - to be aware if the different kinds of knowledge claim that can be produced, and the basis upon which such claims can be advanced.

4. Aim

This TLR aims to help students begin to think more critically about knowledge claims. It does this by introducing them to a range of different types of knowledge claim, and to the different kinds of source upon which such claims can be based. This learning is then reinforced in an exercise in which students are required to analyse the knowledge claim contained in a piece of published academic writing.

5. Learning outcomes

After using this TLR, students should:

• be familiar with the terms knowledge claims and claims-making;
• be aware of the ways in which knowledge claims may be based on some combination of primary and secondary sources;
• be aware of the difference between positive (often science-based) and normative (values-based) knowledge claims, and be able to identify different kinds of claim within these two categories;
• be able to analyse a piece of work in terms of the types of knowledge claim from which it is constituted, and the basis upon which those claims are made.

6. Pre-requisites

There are no formal pre-requisites for this TLR, although some familiarity with questions relating to environmental value would be an advantage. (See Section 13.)

7. How to use TLR

The TLR has been designed to be used in two stages. In the first stage, the students should be introduced to the TLR, given the two pieces of stimulus material (see Section 9) and instructed to undertake some preparatory work. This should be carried out as an individual activity, but could take place during class time or private study.

In the second stage, students are required to work in groups and then take part in a whole-class discussion. This should take place during class time.

Stage 1

i) Introduce the TLR, reviewing the nature of the content, the aims and learning outcomes, and the way in which the TLR will be used. (10 mins)

ii) Give the students the two items of stimulus material (see Section 9). Direct them to read both, and then analyse the piece of academic writing (with reference to the Briefing Sheet) according to the following instructions:

• Identify the key knowledge claim(s) in each paragraph of the piece of academic writing.
• Make a note of which knowledge claims are positive and which are normative; and also note down what kind of positive or normative claim each one is.
• Make a note of the extent to which each of these knowledge claims is based on primary and secondary sources.

Stage 2

i) Divide the class into groups of 4-6 students, and ask group members to compare the notes they produced during Stage 1 of the exercise. In particular, they should discuss and, if possible, resolve any areas of disagreement. (40 mins)

ii) Ask each group to report back on its analysis. Instruct the students not comment mechanically on every single knowledge claim they have discussed but, rather, to focus on:

• any difficulties they encountered;
• any areas of unresolved disagreement within their group. (40 mins)

iii) Conclude the session with a general discussion of issues that have arisen and, if appropriate, raise the question of how the credibility of knowledge claims might be evaluated. (This question is included as a precursor to the Evaluating the Credibility of Knowledge Claims TLR. (See Section 13.) (20 mins)

As described above, the TLR could be used with classes of up to about 40 students. Stage 1 would require 10-15 minutes of class time and, perhaps, an hour of private study. Stage two would require about two hours of class time. However, the time required could be reduced by selecting a suitably short item of academic writing for the analysis.

Follow-up activities

This exercise could be repeated with other examples of published work until the learning outcomes have been achieved. For the sake of variety, these could be drawn from different academic disciplines (spanning the natural, physical and social sciences) and/or from non-academic sources, such as governmental bodies, NGOs and private sector organisations. The same kind of analysis could also be applied to popular writings on the environment, and even the content of television documentaries. Achievement of learning outcomes could be reinforced by encouraging students to do at least some of the recommended reading. (See Section 15.)

8. Instructions to students

As directed by tutor.

9. Stimulus Material

This TLR involves two items of stimulus material. The first is a Briefing Sheet entitled Classifying Knowledge Claims (see Appendix). The second is a piece of academic writing. This could, in principle, be any piece of published academic writing (article or book chapter), provided that its subject matter and style of writing are accessible to the students. In practice, the exercise is likely to work best if:

• the subject matter of the work is directly relevant to the students' programme of study, is highly topical or is of great general interest;
• the work is relatively short, but contains a diverse mixture of positive and normative knowledge claims;
• some of the knowledge claims are controversial, and are likely to be contested by the students.

10. Degree stage

The TLR has been developed for use with students who are encountering the idea of knowledge claims for the first time, regardless of degree stage.

11. Resource requirements

The TLR has no special resource requirements.

12. Preparation

See Section 7.

13. Links with other TLRs

This TLR has been designed as an introduction to the following series of TLRs, all of which are concerned with 'students as consumers and producers of knowledge':

• Bibliographic Citation for Authoritative Academic Writing
• Evaluating the Credibility of Knowledge Claims
• Producing Credible Knowledge Claims

Where students have not previously encountered questions relating to environmental value, this TLR might usefully be preceded by the Introduction to Personal Environmental Values TLR.

More generally, the aims and/or learning outcomes of this TLR are related to those of other TLRs listed in the following 'thematic cluster':

• Critical thinking skills

14. Follow-up activities

See Section 7.

15. Recommended reading

Chalmers, Alan (1988) What is this Thing called Science? (2nd edn.) Open University Press, Milton Keynes.

16. Users' comments

“Good introduction to identifying facts / values distinction.”

“It is perhaps too orientated towards environmental science (especially examples) and might not transfer easily to other areas.”

“Great care needs to be taken in choosing short texts for zero and level one students.”

“Needs at least two sessions on Stage 2.”

“Need to think about whether descriptions of kinds of positive knowledge claims will fit with terms students already familiar with.”

Appendix

Briefing Sheet: Classifying Knowledge Claims:

Introduction

Knowledge - particularly scientific knowledge - is frequently presented uncritically to students at undergraduate level. For example, in What is this thing called science? (Open University Press, Milton Keynes: 1988), Alan Chalmers characterises - and then goes on to criticise - the 'common sense' view of science as follows:

Scientific knowledge is proven knowledge. Scientific theories are derived in some rigorous way from the facts of experience acquired by observation and experiment. Science is based on what we can see and hear and touch, etc. Personal opinion or preferences and speculative imaginings have no place in science. Science is objective. Scientific knowledge is reliable knowledge because it is objectively proven knowledge. (p.1)

However, many historians, philosophers and sociologists of knowledge and science take a very different view. For example, historians point to the radical changes in scientific understanding that have occurred over the years, and ask if we can be sure that similarly radical changes will not occur in years to come; philosophers have raised profound questions about the relationship between ideas in our minds and the nature of external reality, and about the nature of proof and causality; and sociologists have questioned the objectivity of knowledge by investigating the links between knowledge and the psychological, institutional and socio-political contexts of the scientists who produce that knowledge.

There are grounds, therefore, for viewing knowledge - including scientific knowledge - as being fundamentally problematic; and for talking about knowledge not in terms of 'truth' but, instead, in terms of 'knowledge claims' or 'claims-making'. These knowledge claims are produced by particular people, at particularly times and places, and under particular circumstances. They may be advanced with greater or lesser degrees of confidence; they may be more or less widely accepted or contested; they may be subject to more of less radical transformation over the course of time. And, importantly, they may be more or less objective, but - according to some - they can never be entirely objective.

This 'problematised' view of knowledge seems particularly applicable in the environmental field. This is because environmental knowledge claims are generally concerned with human and natural systems, whose interactions are:

• usually complex;
• rarely localised in terms of space or time;
• constantly changing - sometimes quite rapidly - as a result of quantitative and qualitative changes in human activity (eg the development of novel processes and substances).

Moreover, these knowledge claims are very often produced within a context of hotly contested social and environmental values and competing economic and political interests. It is little wonder, then, that so much 'environmental knowledge' can be seen as provisional and uncertain; and is so often subject to contestation. It is important, therefore, that students are able to think critically about the knowledge claims they 'consume' - and about the knowledge claims they 'produce'. In order to do this, they need - in the first place - to be aware if the different kinds of knowledge claim that can be produced, and the basis upon which such claims can be advanced.

Basis of knowledge claims

Knowledge claims may be based largely on 'primary' sources or 'secondary' sources. Primary sources include novel data, ideas, theories, understandings, etc produced by the author. Secondary sources include data, ideas, theories, understandings, etc produced by others, presented in the form of direct quotation, paraphrasing, reproduction of quantitative or other evidence.

Most knowledge claims are based on a fairly obvious combination of both primary and secondary sources. For example, a work might consist of a (new) critical analysis of (existing) work produced by someone else, or a report on an investigation (producing new findings) based on (existing) analytical frameworks or research methods. Claims which appear to be based on just one kind of source or the other must, in fact, be based to some extent on both. For example, even the most original piece of primary research must in some way assume, build upon, or derive from, existing knowledge. Similarly, even a piece of work which purports to do no more than summarise or describe work done by others must in some way entail some degree of novelty or interpretation in the ways in which material from the primary source(s) is selected and presented.

'Positive' knowledge claims

These are knowledge claims that describe the nature, properties, state, etc of an activity, thing, process, system, etc in the past, present or future. Positive knowledge claims (also sometimes referred to as 'descriptive' claims) include statements of causation, comparison, explanation, observation, prediction and relationship.

The following statements - some of which are certainly contested - are all examples of positive knowledge claims:

1. Anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other so-called 'greenhouse gases' are responsible for changes in the global climate. [Statement of causation.]
2. Molecule for molecule, methane is a more powerful 'greenhouse gas' than carbon dioxide. [Statement of comparison.]
3. The US government would have agreed to more stringent controls on greenhouse gas emissions, had it not been for corporate lobbying and concerns about public opinion and the state of the domestic economy. [Statement of explanation.]
4. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have trebled since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. [Statement of observation.]
5. Mean global surface temperatures will rise by several degrees by the end of the next century. [Statement of prediction.]
6. Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are associated with increases in GDP. [Statement of relationship.]

'Normative' knowledge claims

These are knowledge claims that express a judgement on the importance, morality or value of an activity, thing, process, system, etc in the past, present or future. Normative knowledge claims (sometimes also referred to as 'prescriptive' claims) include judgements of good and bad, right and wrong, better and worse; as well as statements about how an activity, thing, process, system, etc should or ought to be. The following are all examples of such claims:

1. It is important to protect biodiversity.
2. We have a moral duty to prevent cruelty to animals.
3. The environment has no value beyond its usefulness to humans.
4. It would be a good idea to legislate against fox-hunting.
5. The decision to increase the tax on petrol was the right one.
6. The proposals put forward by the Friends of the Earth were undoubtedly better than those suggested by Greenpeace.
7. Businesses should seek to minimise their impacts on the environment.
8. Governments ought to integrate environmental assessment into all areas of policy-making.

The evaluation of knowledge claims is addressed in the Evaluating the Credibility of Knowledge Claims TLR (and its accompanying Briefing Sheet).