Embodied Knowledge

Abstract

This article examines the highly specific problems of roof support in coal mines to construct a theoretical framework that describes how texts represent information that is embodied, sensory, and uncertain. As this analysis suggests, workers in risky environments may follow instructions and still fail as situations change. Engineering and management approaches also may fail unless they reflect the kinds of embodied sensory information decision makers need to assess risk in local contexts. This analysis then raises ethical questions about (a) textbook notions of instructions as systematic procedures designed to produce predictable outcomes, (b) limits of particular types of information as signs or indexes of risk, (c) the role of generalized knowledge in uncertain environments, (d) the role of texts in representing knowledge that is sensory and uncertain, and (e) the locus of responsibility for safety if knowledge exists outside of written texts.

Adapting Safety Rules in a High Reliability Context

“…Safety rules are an inherent part of hazardous work and are often the codified insights derived from failure events such as accidents and fatalities. Scholars have examined how lessons from failure events are transformed from lived experience into written directives (Sauer, 1998(Sauer, , 2003, and factors that influence member compliance with safety rules (Hale & Borys, 2013a;Hopkins, 2011;Lawton, 1998). However, research is sparse regarding how safety rules participate in members' efforts to both take action and gain experience.…”

“…Because these operations are not able to learn from trial and error, the technical documentation cycle is designed to codify lessons from failures into standardized rules and abstracted insights designed to fit a variety of circumstances (Sauer, 2003). The process of codifying lessons involves collapsing embodied experience, individual narratives, sensory descriptions, and illustrative kinesthetic gestures into standardized written documents, thus translating failure lessons from a lived modality into a disembodied and standardized written modality (Sauer, 1998(Sauer, , 2003. Adapting safety rules from one modality to another depends on how organizations treat safety rules and other forms of technical documents.…”

On Universality in Human Correspondence Activity

“…After the confirmation of his theory of relativity in 1919, Einstein's need to communicate with other individuals substantially increased. By that time, his stepdaughter Ilse Einstein was helping him with secretarial tasks, resulting in greatly improved coverage of his recorded correspondence (23). Because of this secretarial assistance and his increased fame, we expect that the average time between consecu-tively sent letters, the average interevent time 〈t〉, is significantly larger during the beginning of Einstein's life than during the latter part of his life.…”

Frankenbug Meets the Conch Republic: Engagement, Expertise, and “Strategic Irrationality” in Public Scientific Controversies

“…Irrespective of the seemingly speculative nature of the environmental groups' argument, this passage illustrates the desire of dissenting citizens to meet scientists on their own level and argue science with science. It is important to note here a salient difference between this dynamic between scientists and lay people and the more familiar identification of power relations in public scientific controversy--one in which the scientists are empowered as experts and the citizens are not recognized for either their interactional expertise (Collins & Evans, 2002) or embodied knowledge (Sauer, 1998) is devalued by one or both stakeholder groups. In the Keys, the citizens position themselves as not only seeking outside scientists to consult as contributory experts (Collins & Evans, 2002), but capable of disputing contributory science with scientific experts.…”

“…Complementing the confusion of risk perception is the question of expertise. As noted above, Collins and Evans (2012), Knight and Greenberg (2011), Ceccarelli (2011) and others highlights conceptions of expertise in which scientists are seen as experts in fact and truth, and the embodied of the citizen is not counted (Sauer, 1998). As has been illustrated, however, in the Keys, both stakeholder groups-citizens and scientists-claim both expertise (via education and economic capital) and situated knowledge (via residency in the Keys, experience with the disease, and loyalty/love for the Keys as a place).…”