Place an order for a custom essay, research paper on this or related subject.

Epistemology has grown over the years and so has the study of knowledge grown through the lessons that have been attended over the past few weeks. One notable aspect of knowledge is that regardless of the area of specialisation the knowledge has to remain very dynamic over the years. As one progresses with the acquisition of knowledge even when the knowledge doesn’t change the level has to shift. With regard to this argument it is therefore arguable that knowledge, epistemology, would always change, however slight.

When faced with challenges, Feldman (Feldman, p 102) asserts that the knowledge on the approach for solving the challenge would always differ. Yet still the ultimate goal would remain the same. Any experiment carried out would endear to find solutions to some problem. While the ultimate results would be different, the objectives inherent in the experiment would project to serve the same purpose.

If epistemological relativism should guide any discourse then ideally as much as the result targeted would be similar the extent of serving the intended purpose will depend on the person carrying out the experiment. This is where epistemological relativism comes in. the truth posed by any information is therefore dependent on the recipient of the knowledge. The balancing point nevertheless is the how best the acquired knowledge serves the purpose for the study.

In epistemological relativism, Ross (Ross, p 34) argues that the need for thinking is paramount and the learner or the recipient of the knowledge has the least option but to have an open mind and engage them in thinking. Through the engagement the recipient is capable to relatively ascertaining the truth that is contained in the received knowledge.

The creation of knowledge turns out to be very systematic and progressive. This makes it imperative that epistemologists follow a specific stream of path for them to develop a consistent and empirical knowledge (Feldman, p 51). Inasmuch as there has to be epistemological relativism the need for consistence is therefore very imperative and inevitable.

The relations between firms are pecked so much on the knowledge that the relating firms require from ach other. While there is the dire need for ownership of the knowledge and skills, the trust and the relativity of the truth is what ultimately cements the relationship between the firms that have the interest of sharing certain skills and knowledge.

The setting in of globalisations and the internationalisation of skills has made epistemological development universal and near uniform (Feldman, p. 52). As information is shared by one group and the other, the need for reduced relativism becomes very imperative and inevitable. At this level of epistemological know-how, those who interact with the knowledge tend to strike a balance between the various knowledge bases.

Symbiosis when it comes to epistemology has become the order of the day world over (Yasumuro & Westney, p. 21). This has increased the likelihood of questioning the developed knowledge. Because the knowledge is shared throughout the globe, those who interact with the knowledge either critique or agree with the existing knowledge.

Companies have been able to develop branches across the globe. As the firms operate in this areas there are imperatively forced to share the production knowledge with the employees who would be hailing from within and therefore making the knowledge known to the residents and therefore prone to critique.

Yasumuro & Westney (Yasumuro & Westney, p. 14) argues that the systems theory presents the ideals of cooperation between the various units of an organisation. Subsequently the organisation has the least options of having the knowledge used shared among the players. Similarly, with the upsurge of globalisation, knowledge can not be restricted from spreading; neither can knowledge be closed away from critique.