Hack IB

The knowledge framework serves as the foundational underpinnings for you to unpack the nature of knowledge in each Area of Knowledge. This is essential for the TOK Essay and can be very helpful for the TOK Exhibition as well.

This article serves as a quick summary of each part of the framework to allow for effective analysis of the differences between knowledge in AOKs.

Scope

• What knowledge fits into certain areas of knowledge

Sometimes it can be hard to define boundaries for knowledge. Medical research for example is tied heavily to the Natural Sciences as we look to the natural world for help on our human ailments. But at the same time, medicine cannot be simplified to only the Natural Sciences as the way we as humans behave can influence the effectiveness of medicines and even provide for treatment options that are purely psychological, for example. As a result, there may be times it isn’t immediately clear what knowledge falls into what AOK and what category we should put them in. Sometimes it is very clearly defined – as with what you learn in the IB, where everything belongs in one of the 6 groups of subjects. Whether knowledge is interdisciplinary or singularly focused on one discipline, it is helpful to be aware of the possibilities and limits of knowledge.

Perspectives

• Different views of different disciplines and areas of knowledge on knowledge itself

You will likely encounter different perspectives on the same topic at least once in your study in the IB. If you study chemistry, you may see different acid and bases theories, or in Economics, the neo-classical and Keynesian models. How does each AOK handle differences in perspectives? Does it seek to make all perspectives co-exist or force a singular true version? What you hopefully will realise is that even in the ‘hard sciences’, there can be different perspectives. Uncertainty introduced as a result of this is completely normal as part of the knowledge creation process. It can be hard to adjust our way of thinking to deal with this reality, but researchers and academics frequently live in this world of ambiguity. Sometimes having multiple perspectives can even be beneficial to spur further knowledge that either consolidates or falsifies existing views!

Methods and tools

• Differences in the approaches of different areas of knowledge to produce knowledge

Consider the way that scientists produce knowledge and how it differs from the way artists create knowledge. There may be general similarities that you can identify between AOKs and how knowledge is produced within each of them, but the tools and ways in which knowledge is created can differ because of the nature of knowledge. Would you expect a ‘rigid’ and ‘structured’ method of producing art? Perhaps not, but when applied to the Natural Sciences, the systematic method of producing knowledge is often praised as a way to ensure that it is reliable and belies its certainty.

Tools can also make a big difference to the outcomes of produced knowledge. Sometimes tools are different simply as a matter of the requirements of each AOK. For example, the equipment and research methods you might use to observe bacteria growth wouldn’t translate very well to when we try and conduct social experiments. So taking an example from the differences between the Natural and Human Sciences, the different areas of study of these AOKs means they have their own ways of producing knowledge that best facilitate them. It would be too simplistic to simply argue that the tools or methods of one AOK is better than another, but rather, they each serve their own purpose and reflect the nature of knowledge that sets each AOK apart.

Ethics

• Not just right or wrong, but the impacts of ethics on knowledge gathering.

The most infamous ethical debates in producing knowledge is perhaps the use of animal testing. Using mice, monkeys and a whole host of animals, there are always debates as to whether this should be ethical, and whether the benefits of using these methodologies create a net positive for us versus the impact it has on those animals. During the pandemic, vaccines were being developed at a breakneck pace and of course, volunteers were needed to test the efficacy of vaccine. We have very strict framework and legislative requirements for human trials that ensure these vaccines were safe for testing, but if I asked you to participate, you might still have some qualms! So ethics essentially deals with this moral dilemma for the community of knowers as a whole. When should be ‘pay the price’ in pursuit of greater knowledge and when should we not? Who determines these standards and how do they change over time? Those are all great questions to consider!