IntroductionList of Author Blogs and Twitter AccountsIndex by AuthorIndex by TopicLicensing Information1. Innovation & Disruption25 Years of Ed TechIf We Were Really Serious about Educational TechnologyWe Can't Let Educators Off the HookInterventionsWaiting for O SupermanA Field Guide to "Jobs that Don't Exist Yet"A Definition of Emerging Technologies for EducationInnovation in Higher Education ... and Other Blasts from the PastTo Lecture Capture or Not to Lecture Capture?Possible Futures for Innovation and Technology in Higher EducationThis is Not the Online Learning You (or We) are Looking ForReclaiming Disruption2. Openness & SharingInto the OpenDefining the 'Open' in Open Content and Open Educational ResourcesExploring the Open Knowledge LandscapePlanning to Share Versus Just SharingThe Access Compromise and the 5th ROpen Textbooks? UGH.My Open Textbook: Pedagogy and PracticeRemix, Mashups, Aggregation, Plagiarism Oh MyCrossing the Field Boundaries: Open Science, Open Data & Open EducationThe CCK08 MOOCOERs: The Good, the Bad and the UglyWhat's Right and What's Wrong about Coursera-Style MOOCsOpening Up Open PedagogyOpen Pedagogy and a Very Brief History of the ConceptInternational Something: Why You Should Care #DigPedDoes Open Pedagogy Require OER?Pragmatism vs. Idealism and the Identity Crisis of OER AdvocacyOpen Ends?The Fallacy of 'Open'3. Identity & ParticipationThe Question Should be: Why Are You *Not* BloggingThe Kindness of BloggingAn Introduction to Connective KnowledgeRhizomatic EducationA History of Knowledge, Distributed Cognition, and the PhDSome Observations on PLE DiagramsE-Learning 2.0The Role of Personality in EducationDigital IdentitiesKithNobody's Version of Dumbsomething is rotten in the state of ... TwittercliqueonomicsColonisers and Edupunks (&C.)Digital Trespass and Critical Literacy #OER174. Equity & PowerThe Golden Age of Education that Never WasBlackboard Patents the LMSThe Glass BeesWhat Do We Owe Students When We Collect Their Data - A ResponseAI is Coming for Your Instructional and Learning Design Jobs, ApparentlyMOOCs and Directing an Academic FieldThe Audacity: Thrun Learns a Lesson and Students PayThe Lower Ed Ecosystem: Bootcamps Edition#BreakOpen Breaking OpenOpen Cyborgs at #ALTCPlatform Literacy in a Time of Mass GaslightingWhy We Shouldn't Let Economists Play with EducationConnectivity as PovertyReproducing Marginality?Inclusion AgainOER, Equity, and Implicit Creative RedliningFor Now, Our OwnConcluding ThoughtsAppendicesA List of Some Great EdTech BlogsRecommendations for Formal Learning

A History of Knowledge, Distributed Cognition, and the PhD

Editor's Note

This was original posted to Royce Kimmons's blog [] on February 2, 2011.

Building off of Matthew Might’s illustrated guide to a PhD [] and sparked by some concepts presented in Roberts’s The Dissertation Journey, I’ve been pondering lately the scope of human knowledge, scientific progress, and distributed cognition as they relate to seeking a PhD in today’s world.

Let’s start by creating a two-dimensional model of human knowledge c. 300BC. At that time, Aristotle was alive, doing the whole philosopher thing, in Athens and thereabouts. As with any learner of any age, Aristotle had access to knowledge resources (e.g. other people [Plato], written records, etc.) and had the ability to engage with these resources, which we will call literacies.

Aristotle's Knowledge

As the model suggests, though Aristotle was a well-learned individual, he certainly did not know all that was known by humans throughout the world. On the other hand, he was able to push and grow human knowledge in a few, key ways (e.g. ethics, astronomy, etc.) as evidenced by the manner in which his knowledge (at points) reached the edge of human knowledge and expanded it.

Additionally, Aristotle had access to knowledge resources and had the literacies necessary to use them, which expanded his ability to utilize human knowledge. That is, though Aristotle learned much, he still relied on external sources of knowledge (e.g. star charts, histories, maps, etc.).

Let’s contrast this with a fictional unlearned peasant of the time named Philo.

Philo's Knowledge

You’ll notice a few differences between Aristotle and Philo. First, Philo knows considerably less (as illustrated by the smaller size of his polygon) than Aristotle. Second, there are some things in which Philo is more learned than Aristotle (as illustrated by the sharp point on the right which more closely approaches the limits of human knowledge than Aristotle’s) in certain subjects (e.g. tilling land, pruning, etc.). And, you’ll also notice that Philo’s literacies are such that he cannot come close to matching Aristotle in some aspects, even while employing all the resources at his disposal.

Now, consider Jo, a 21st century PhD candidate.

Jo's Knowledge

You will notice a few things in this illustration. First, at least the shape of human knowledge has changed from how it existed two millennia ago (while whether or not the scale has changed depends upon your belief in scientific progress). Second, Jo, like Aristotle, is pushing the limits of human knowledge in at least one key area which he has devoted his time and energies to researching. Third, in shape, Jo looks much more like the peasant Philo than like Aristotle (i.e. he is a master of one aspect of human knowledge and is largely ignorant of others). And fourth, like Aristotle, his literacies allow him the ability to utilize a wide range of resources beyond himself, even outside his expertise area (e.g. Internet resources, library materials, friends and acquantances in different careers and academic areas, etc.).

Now, if these are at all meaningful models of these three individuals’ knowledge, then what does this mean for the budding PhD candidate?

First, it raises concerns for the ivory tower approach to education and research that persists in our society, because Jo, like the unlearned peasant of two millennia ago, is, himself, only skilled in a single way of thinking and working. He may not, for instance, be able to bring himself to think about problems and issues in the world around him in non-academic or non-disciplinary ways. (To a devout businessman, aren’t all occurrences business opportunities? To a devout researcher, aren’t all happenings fodder for research?) In fact, he may not even be able to effectively communicate with those of different educational levels or research interests (cf. Deresiewicz []).

Second, it forces us to come to grips with the value of distributed cognition. If, in fact, all of human knowledge is not knowable by a single individual and if, in fact, an individual must devote his energies entirely to a single facet of knowledge to push the limits of human knowledge one millimeter further than it currently is, then, it follows, that to grow human knowledge, individuals need some level of support in areas outside their expertise area in order to function in a world that requires at least a certain level of general or communal knowledge. As such, we may find value in considering how distributed cognition (including technological tools which serve as aides to human understanding and social connections with experts in other areas [including more general knowledge areas]) can empower us to simultaneously be effective researchers (or growers of human knowledge) and well-rounded people with the fundamental knowledge necessary to act and prosper in a world that is continually being reshaped in a variety of directions.

Suggested Citation

Kimmons, R. (2019). A History of Knowledge, Distributed Cognition, and the PhD. In R. Kimmons, EdTech in the Wild: critical blog posts. EdTech Books. Retrieved from

CC BY: This work is released under a CC BY license, which means that you are free to do with it as you please as long as you properly attribute it.

End-of-Chapter Survey

: How would you rate the overall quality of this chapter?
  1. Very Low Quality
  2. Low Quality
  3. Moderate Quality
  4. High Quality
  5. Very High Quality
Comments will be automatically submitted when you navigate away from the page.