Knowledge creation as a core of innovation processes

EJC2010 Conference

Jyväskylä 31.5.-4.6.2010

Antti Hautamäki Research professor (emeritus 2014)

Agora Center University of Jyväskylä

The characters of innovation

•  Innovation is introducing something new and useful.

•  It is –  process: idea -> invention -> implementation -> impact –  recombination of existing assets –  emerging of new ideas in thinking –  social thinking and communication –  answering questions –  knowledge creation

Different concepts of knowledge creation

•  Correspondence theory: knowledge is an adequate description (reflection) of reality

•  Kantianismi: knowledge emerges by applying categories to experience

•  Perspectivism: a conceptual framework carves a part of reality or defines a viewpoint to reality

•  World creation: we create worlds by different media (verbal, visual, musical, gestural).

Kant

•  Distinction between a noumenal and a phenomenal world

•  The noumenal world exists but cannot be grasped directly by human thought

•  The phenomenal world is grasped by our senses mediating through conceptual schemas or categorial frameworks

•  Categories are universal, necessary preconditions of thought

Perspectivism •  F.Nietzsche:

–  Rejection of the distinction between the noumenal and phenomenal world

–  We can construct the world in different ways –  All description of the reality are made from a certain

perspective •  Scheme-content dualism and conceptual

relativism •  Conceptual schemes are

–  A) the principle for organizing the elements of our experience in different ways

–  B) sets of basic beliefs we have about the world

Worldmaking (N. Goodman) •  We are constructing worlds by our symbolic systems

(words, pictures, sounds) •  There is no true version of the world (the “reality”) •  Worlds are made from other worlds by

–  Composition and decomposition –  Weighting –  Ordering –  Deletion and supplementation –  Deformations

•  “If worlds are as much made as founded, so also knowing is as much remaking as reporting” (N.Goodman, Ways of worldmaking, 1978, p. 22)

Two issues of knowledge creation

•  Concept formation – Similarities – Abstractions – Definitions

•  Combining complementary knowledge –  Identifying perspectives – Merging perspectives into synthesis – Learning new things – Finding solutions to problems

Concept formation •  A conceptual space approach (Hautamäki 1986,

Gärdenfors 2000) •  A conceptual space (CS) is XDI where •  I is a set of determinables (attributes) •  Di is a set of determinates (values) for each i in I •  XDI is a Cartesian product of sets Di •  An example

I = {color, form, length,…} color = {red, blue, yellow,…} form = {round, ellipse,…} …

•  Concepts are subsets of conceptual space

Illustration

X

“Apple”

An entity in the topic

Conceptual space “Apple” • Form: round, • Color: green, red,… • Weight: 20-60 G • ….

A representation of the entity in CP Form: round Color: green …

Perspectives •  Hautamäki (1986)

–  A perspective P (or viewpoint) is a selection of determinables: –  P is a subset of I –  Say P = {color } –  P defines a strict subspace XDI/P of XDI

•  Kaipainen & Hautamäki (2011) –  A perspective P gives weights to determinables –  P = {w1, w2,…} where wi is in [0,1] –  P defines a “fuzzy” subspace of XDI

•  Two Implications: –  different perspectives can be compared –  identity is relative to a perspective P: X =P Y

Two layered perspectivism

World

Topic A conceptual space XDI

Subspace

1. Selection of I and Di’s (ontological perspective)

2. Selection of relevant set of determinables (epistemic perspectives)

Subspaces relative to P

Knowledge of an agent

•  Knowledge is relative to conceptual spaces and perspectives

•  Let XDI be a conceptual space and P a perspective adopted by an agent A

•  A uses the concepts definable in the subspace XDI/P to express his/her beliefs about a topic T

•  Therefore XDI/P is the cognitive DNA of A about T

Complementary knowledge •  Let we have two agents A and B with cognitive

DNA based on the same CS but different perspectives PA and PB

•  The notion of complementary knowledge can be defined in many ways

•  The one used in Hautamäki 1986 is that knowledge of agents A and B is “complementary” if PA and PB are overlapping

•  Then we can form the synthesis of A’s and B’s knowledge, leading to new knowledge

Different DNA’s, topic computers

•  A is a professional in computer technology

•  PA includes –  CPU –  Operating system –  Speed (MHz) –  Openness –  Ports …

•  B is a designer

•  PB includes –  Easiness of use –  Design (color, form) –  Applications –  Support –  WiFi readiness …

Multi-agency innovation process 1.  Searching agents with complementary

knowledge (cognitive DNA) 2.  Creating a common language by fixing a joint

CS fitting with “subspaces” of agents 3.  Sharing perspectives (persuasion) 4.  Forming a synthesis of perspectives 5.  Creating new knowledge based on the

synthesis 6.  Opening new possibilities to solve problems

(innovation)

Summary

•  Innovation emerges by connecting complementary knowledge

•  We can use exact tools from logic and mathematics to represent knowledge

•  Conceptual space approach is promising allowing to study the cognitive base of concept formation

•  We can compare complementary perspectives and knowledge based on them

Literature •  Goodman N. (1978): Ways of worldmaking. Sussex: Harvester

Press. •  Gärdenfors P. (2000): Conceptual Spaces; On the Geometry of

Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. •  Hautamäki A. (1986): Points of view and their logical analysis. Acta

Philosophica Fennica, Vol. 41. •  Hautamäki A.:A Conceptual Space Approach to Semantic Networks,

Computers & Mathematics with Applications 23 (1992), 6-9, March-May, s. 517-526.

•  Kaipainen M. & Hautamäki A.: Epistemic pluralism and multi-perspective knowledge organization, Explorative conceptualization of topical content domains. Knowledge Organization vol. 38 no. 6 2011 (November), 503-514 (2011).

•  Kaipainen M., Normak P., Niglas K., Klippar J. & Laanpere M. (2008): Soft ontologies, spatial representations and multi-perspective explorability. Expert systems 25(5).