Deep knowledge is beneficial, however Standpoint Epistemology demonstrates the need for broad inputs too.

I believe that on an individual and independent basis, deep knowledge about a topic can be extremely beneficial. However, during collaborative efforts, a broad knowledge with inputs from various people who each have their own speciality or standpoint is superior.

This idea comes from the basic tenets of Harding's Standpoint Epistemology:

• In order to produce the most objective and valuable knowledge, it is vital to have a broad range of input.
• This is especially applicable in areas such as the sciences, which tasks itself in producing knowledge that is accurate and free of bias.
• Harding holds that individuals have access to certain knowledge as a result of their experiences, which can be formed by gender, class, nationality etc.
• As a result of this we should include input from the broadest range of people in our epistemological enquiries in order to gain a more accurate perspective on an issue.
• This can also be applied to involving people with various specialisms and disciplines to gain the most knowledge on a subject.
• One of the reasons the scientific community exists is to broaden an individual scientist's perspective by subjecting his theories to other broader ideas and criticisms, as well as in an attempt to eliminate mistakes and bias according to the scientific method.
• Being subjected to only one's one experiences, and representing only one demographic means one's knowledge is unavoidably limited no matter how 'deep'.
• An example can be used of the scientific community historically made up of men, who were considered experts in their field and had deep knowledge.
• Yet, this male-dominated and male-centredness of science has caused scientific inaccuracies and prejudices around female anatomy, even today, as a result of women's exclusion in science. This shows the importance of a broad epistemological input.

What if we could have broad knowledge that was really deep?

• Barring that, since it seems we can't usually have the two so well together, I think deep knowledge is admirable and necessary; but maybe we should not put so much emphasis on specialization when cross-disciplinary information/synthesis can be really enlightening.

• Synthesizing information across disciplines is a way to achieve broadened knowledge. Cross-disciplinary learning and instruction, for instance, is typically quite beneficial for knowledge development.

• Precisely when broad knowledge turns into deep knowledge is an ever-moving line, I think, if there even ever is a precise line to it at all. It's harder to compare ideas to other ideas when we get stuck in a set way of seeing them; we can't see how different or similar the levels of knowledge are. We appear liable to miss that kind of reading, that comparison state, if we don't expand the lens to multiple disciplines of thinking. That expanded state doesn't separate the disciplines/theories within those disciplines so neatly, but instead shows the subtle gradients of similarity and difference between all of them, so they're better able to be used together in a conjunction state that is just as "deep" and "broad" as it needs to be at each level of precision (which stands in relation to the larger whole, usually.)