when i say When I say … epistemic curiosity Rachel H Ellaway
The deceptively simple question ‘what if…’ drives both science and science fiction, sustains researchers through their labours, and sends explorers into the physical, social and intellectual wild. This drive has been called ‘epistemic curiosity’1 and defined as ‘the desire for knowledge that motivates individuals to learn new ideas, eliminate information gaps, and solve intellectual problems’.2 It is something we all have and is probably the reason why you are reading this essay now. Rather than championing the quest for knowledge in medical education, my own epistemic curiosity leads me to explore it as a concept. Let us start by defining some terms. ‘Epistemic’ is an adjective pertaining to knowledge; ‘epistemology’ is the study or theory of knowledge. ‘Ontic’ pertains to what exists; ‘ontology’ is the study or theory of that which exists. It is important therefore to distinguish between ontic and epistemic curiosity. Ontic curiosity questions whether something exists in an absolute sense, whereas epistemic curiosity is concerned with knowledge and understanding. The difference is apparent in research where researchers may ask whether a phenomenon really exists (an ontic issue) or they may seek to establish how various approaches to scientific enquiry can prove, disprove or otherwise make something concrete and knowable (an epistemic quest). Medical education research is therefore an epistemic reflection of what we suppose, or hope, are ontic realities. Epistemic curiosity can turn its lens on itself to consider the nature, creation and expression of knowledge, as well as its pursuit. Epistemic curiosity can therefore focus on how we know, not just on what we know. There is a delightful meta-ness about this:
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada Medical Education 2014: 48: 113–114 doi:10.1111/medu.12272
just as a Russian doll can be opened to reveal another version of itself, we can ask questions within questions, such as: ‘How do I know that I know that I know…?’ and so on. This is more than intellectual playfulness. As scholars, we are accountable for the knowledge we use and the ways in which we use it, and as such we must remain curious about all aspects of our professional practice. Making sure we have the opportunity and ability to sustain our curiosity is perhaps a hidden tenet of professionalism. For Neal, ‘…epistemic curiosity is usually stirred up by a thought-provoking experience that contradicts expectations and leaves the student perplexed’.3 I would go further to propose that epistemic curiosity in medical education should be more than a reaction to perplexing events; it should also involve the learner in reflection on the nature of knowledge and the ways in which it is used. In this light, enacting epistemic curiosity is not a random act, but an essential and deliberate part of becoming a professional. The development of deliberate, focused and sustained epistemic curiosity should therefore be a core part of learning and teaching in medical education. Epistemic curiosity is also an essential part of medical education scholarship. Although we may not often challenge the nature of knowledge and knowing, we do ask, or at least we are starting to ask, fairly far-reaching questions, such as ‘What is evidence?’ and ‘What is the role of theory?’ Furthermore, the growing use of critical theory within medical education scholarship, drawing upon the work of philosophers like Foucault and Bourdieu, requires us to identify and challenge the ways in which power is transacted through knowledge. Epi-
Correspondence: Dr Rachel H. Ellaway, Northern Ontario School of Medicine, 935 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, Ontario P3E 2C6, Canada. Tel: 00 1 705 662 7196; E-mail: [email protected]
ª 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. MEDICAL EDUCATION 2014; 48: 113–114
113
R H Ellaway stemic curiosity can therefore have social and political dimensions, and it can be a shared and socially constructed undertaking, as well as an individual one. This short essay has itself been an act of epistemic curiosity. Having turned the lens of epistemic curiosity on itself, I am left wondering about the roles of ontic and epistemic curiosity in my own scholarship and that of my peers. Sometimes we start with ontic curiosity and move to epistemic (‘I think there’s something here; let’s find out’), and sometimes it is the other way round (‘Is my knowledge of this thing justified and verifiable?’). Either way, we are perhaps less aware of and careful with the kinds of knowledge with which we work than we might be. At the very least, I hope this essay has stimulated your curiosity about your own curiosity, an ever-
114
opening flower of scholarly opportunity, which, to borrow from Thomas,4 is the ‘green fuse’ that drives us all.
REFERENCES 1 Berlyne DE. A theory of human curiosity. Br J Psychol 1954;45:180–91. 2 Litman JA. Interest and deprivation factors of epistemic curiosity. Pers Indiv Differ 2008;44:1585–95. 3 Neal E. A review of epistemic curiosity and behaviour. Educ Leadership 1970;27 (6):633–7. 4 Thomas DM. The force that through the green fuse drives the flower. Selected Poems. London: Everyman 1993. Received 30 April 2013; editorial comments to author 8 May 2013; accepted for publication 14 May 2013
ª 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. MEDICAL EDUCATION 2014; 48: 113–114
The deceptively simple question ‘what if…’ drives both science and science fiction, sustains researchers through their labours, and sends explorers into the physical, social and intellectual wild. This drive has been called ‘epistemic curiosity’1 and defined as ‘the desire for knowledge that motivates individuals to learn new ideas, eliminate information gaps, and solve intellectual problems’.2 It is something we all have and is probably the reason why you are reading this essay now. Rather than championing the quest for knowledge in medical education, my own epistemic curiosity leads me to explore it as a concept. Let us start by defining some terms. ‘Epistemic’ is an adjective pertaining to knowledge; ‘epistemology’ is the study or theory of knowledge. ‘Ontic’ pertains to what exists; ‘ontology’ is the study or theory of that which exists. It is important therefore to distinguish between ontic and epistemic curiosity. Ontic curiosity questions whether something exists in an absolute sense, whereas epistemic curiosity is concerned with knowledge and understanding. The difference is apparent in research where researchers may ask whether a phenomenon really exists (an ontic issue) or they may seek to establish how various approaches to scientific enquiry can prove, disprove or otherwise make something concrete and knowable (an epistemic quest). Medical education research is therefore an epistemic reflection of what we suppose, or hope, are ontic realities. Epistemic curiosity can turn its lens on itself to consider the nature, creation and expression of knowledge, as well as its pursuit. Epistemic curiosity can therefore focus on how we know, not just on what we know. There is a delightful meta-ness about this:
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada Medical Education 2014: 48: 113–114 doi:10.1111/medu.12272
just as a Russian doll can be opened to reveal another version of itself, we can ask questions within questions, such as: ‘How do I know that I know that I know…?’ and so on. This is more than intellectual playfulness. As scholars, we are accountable for the knowledge we use and the ways in which we use it, and as such we must remain curious about all aspects of our professional practice. Making sure we have the opportunity and ability to sustain our curiosity is perhaps a hidden tenet of professionalism. For Neal, ‘…epistemic curiosity is usually stirred up by a thought-provoking experience that contradicts expectations and leaves the student perplexed’.3 I would go further to propose that epistemic curiosity in medical education should be more than a reaction to perplexing events; it should also involve the learner in reflection on the nature of knowledge and the ways in which it is used. In this light, enacting epistemic curiosity is not a random act, but an essential and deliberate part of becoming a professional. The development of deliberate, focused and sustained epistemic curiosity should therefore be a core part of learning and teaching in medical education. Epistemic curiosity is also an essential part of medical education scholarship. Although we may not often challenge the nature of knowledge and knowing, we do ask, or at least we are starting to ask, fairly far-reaching questions, such as ‘What is evidence?’ and ‘What is the role of theory?’ Furthermore, the growing use of critical theory within medical education scholarship, drawing upon the work of philosophers like Foucault and Bourdieu, requires us to identify and challenge the ways in which power is transacted through knowledge. Epi-
Correspondence: Dr Rachel H. Ellaway, Northern Ontario School of Medicine, 935 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, Ontario P3E 2C6, Canada. Tel: 00 1 705 662 7196; E-mail: [email protected]
ª 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. MEDICAL EDUCATION 2014; 48: 113–114
113
R H Ellaway stemic curiosity can therefore have social and political dimensions, and it can be a shared and socially constructed undertaking, as well as an individual one. This short essay has itself been an act of epistemic curiosity. Having turned the lens of epistemic curiosity on itself, I am left wondering about the roles of ontic and epistemic curiosity in my own scholarship and that of my peers. Sometimes we start with ontic curiosity and move to epistemic (‘I think there’s something here; let’s find out’), and sometimes it is the other way round (‘Is my knowledge of this thing justified and verifiable?’). Either way, we are perhaps less aware of and careful with the kinds of knowledge with which we work than we might be. At the very least, I hope this essay has stimulated your curiosity about your own curiosity, an ever-
114
opening flower of scholarly opportunity, which, to borrow from Thomas,4 is the ‘green fuse’ that drives us all.
REFERENCES 1 Berlyne DE. A theory of human curiosity. Br J Psychol 1954;45:180–91. 2 Litman JA. Interest and deprivation factors of epistemic curiosity. Pers Indiv Differ 2008;44:1585–95. 3 Neal E. A review of epistemic curiosity and behaviour. Educ Leadership 1970;27 (6):633–7. 4 Thomas DM. The force that through the green fuse drives the flower. Selected Poems. London: Everyman 1993. Received 30 April 2013; editorial comments to author 8 May 2013; accepted for publication 14 May 2013
ª 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. MEDICAL EDUCATION 2014; 48: 113–114
