Thus, some understand knowledge to be universal and
context-independent while others conceive it as situated
and based on individual experiences. Maybe it is a little bit
of both. A concerto pianist has the knowledge – i.e. the
ability – to play the piano, something the Metropolitan
opera audience is able to appreciate. This pianist, given a
suitable instrument, would be able to express his or her
knowledge equally well in some other location with a
completely new audience. Thus, knowing how to play
resides within the pianist and is, in this sense, context -
independent. However, should the same pianist be
stranded in the middle of the Amazon jungle and picked
up by some unknown Indian tribe, her knowledge cannot
be manifested. Even if a piano would be available, the
Indians would not be able to recognise (and possibly not
even appreciate) a classic masterpiece. To make sense, the
piano-playing knowledge of the pianist requires the
context of a knowledgeable audience. Thus, knowing how
to play is meaningless in the wrong tradition or
environment. There are thus aspects of knowledge that are
held by the individual and others that are more socially
constructed. This inter-relationship between individual
knowledge and tradition is dealt with by Polanyi when he
speaks of personal knowledge as something not entirely
subjective and yet not fully objective [26]. We shall return
to this topic in section six, but first, let us deal with some
definitions.