Suchergebnisse

"An innovative contribution to debates on the internationalization and globalization of the social sciences, this book pays particular attention to their theoretical and epistemological reconfiguration in the light of postcolonial critiques and critiques of Eurocentrism. Bringing together theoretical contributions and empirical case studies from around the world, including India, the Americas, South Africa, Australia and Europe, it engages in debates concerning public sociology and explores South-South research collaborations specific to the social sciences. Contributions transcend established critiques of Eurocentrism to make space for the idea of global social sciences and truly transnational research. Thematically arranged and both international and interdisciplinary in scope, this volume reflects the different theoretical and thematic backgrounds of the contributing authors, who enter into dialogue and debate with one another in the development of a more inclusive, more representative and more theoretically relevant stage for the social sciences. A rigorous critique of the contemporary state of the social sciences as well as an attempt to find another way of doing transnational sociology, Global Knowledge Production in the Social Sciences will appeal to scholars of sociology, political science and social theory with interests in the production of social scientific knowledge, postcolonialism and transnationalism in research"--EBL.

PurposeThis paper focuses on how feminist research seeks to integrate the inclusion of women in society for them to be active participants in disaster management, and goes on to prove how crucial it is for disaster research to collaborate with feminist research to arrive at a cohesive, interwoven, interdisciplinary field and methodology, while at the same time giving the agency in the hands of local agents for them to bring about change through traditional methods interwoven with broader methodologies. To hand over the process to local agents would result in decolonisation of knowledge production and implementation.Design/methodology/approachThe paper was written using secondary sources, mainly in the form of books, journal articles and news articles. Reports by international organisations were used to augment data and other theoretical frameworks and references in the paper. The secondary sources were selected keeping in view one of the primary objectives of the paper, namely "decolonising knowledge production". Analysis by postcolonial authors from the global South has been included. Research and literature based in local contexts form an important part of the sources consulted throughout this paper. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has been used as a case study to highlight how disasters are still "gendered"; it opens up space for further research on the topic.FindingsEven though women are increasingly recognised as agents of positive change in prevention, mitigation and post-disaster efforts, very little is done at the policy and implementation levels to include their experiences and benefit from them. There is an urgent need for systemic, gender-aware changes at socio-economic and political levels so that hazards may be prevented from turning into disasters by reducing the vulnerability of populations.Originality/valueThe importance of this research lies in its interdisciplinary approach and the integration of three fields of study disaster management, feminist/gender studies and decolonising knowledge production. The attempt is to analyse the interdependence of these fields of study to understand the lacunae in planning and implementation of disaster management policies, and to pave the way for further research by way of this integration.

This paper examines the linked themes of identity and knowledge production embedded within the concept of insider scholarship. Insider scholarship may be described as the production of knowledge by a scholar about a group with which s/he identifies as a member. We are immediately compelled to complicate this definition by asking how any such group is delineated and how member- ship therein shapes knowledge production. The idea of insider scholarship thus evokes a series of queries about who produces what knowledge, about whom and for whom. The paper makes the argument that the discussion on insider scholarship has gained renewed relevance. In an effort to reclaim representa- tions of Africa and Africans, earlier generations of African scholars might some- times have based scholarly legitimacy on idealisations of race, culture and terri- tory. From that historical point, we appear to be in a moment when notions of 'cosmopolitanism' and 'universalism' make nonsense of any attempt to ground scholarship in complex and shifting identities. As the fourth generation of scholars comes into its own, one of its defining tasks will be to negotiate this contested terrain. This paper represents such an attempt. It argues that the concept of insider scholarship cannot simply be discarded as irrelevant. To do so would constitute an ill-advised neglect or woeful ignorance of the politics of represen- tation about Africa, and of the power differentials in different spaces within the field of African Studies. However, there are multiple grounds for claiming 'insiderness', and defining it by narrow parameters is unhelpful, if not damaging to any sense of common purpose. In light of this, I present 'shared struggle' as a strategic basis for reconstituting the theoretical value and the viable practice of insider scholarship. I conclude the paper by examining the implication of this conceptual shift.

The political debates are the major indicators to open a dialogue and to set the tone of politics in society. The elections' debates in Pakistan are directly linked with the nature of the state and its ideological and elite composition. The post-colonial state structure and its reflection in electoral politics is a dominant determining factor which led to induce order through objectifying in existing electoral status quo. The dominant forces on the electoral scene have the power to interpret the existing knowledge production and debate for their own interest. Both objectivities and subjectivities in which electoral debates operate are in control of the post-colonial state structure. This paper is an attempt to explore the articulation of electoral debates in academic knowledge production. Further, how does existing academic debate explain the nature of electoral politics? Why?The purposively selected academic debates on elections revolved around functionalist and interpretivist paradigms influenced by the existing debate between subjectivity and objectivity. The descriptive method has been applied in exploring a research question under study.

Unidad de excelencia María de Maeztu CEX2019-000940-M ; This paper examines alliances between scientists and local groups in the context of environmental justice conflicts. We analyze the trajectories of two white male scientific experts collaborating with activist groups in mining and nuclear conflicts around the world. We posit the knowledge co-production processes that take place in these collaborations can challenge (internal and external) power relations and hegemonic discourses around pollution. These collaborations can entail three types of co-production: (i) co-production of knowledge where new technical knowledge is co-created; (ii) co-production of interpretation through which knowledge is contextualized technically and politically; and (iii) the co-production of the mobilization of knowledge where different expertise collaborate in the elaboration of strategies based on their (scientific, local, Indigenous, traditional or experiential) knowledges and networks. Whilst knowledge co-production provides legitimacy and confidence to local groups; knowledge interpretation and its mobilization provide public legitimacy, visibility, and political leverage. This paper unsettles seemingly colonial processes pointing to the importance of locally driven alliances, the collaborative dynamics at play merging local and scientific expertise as well as the motivations and trajectories of scientists and local groups. Our approach makes visible how these alliances are the result of supra-local networks of support that connect scientists with local groups struggling against extractive activities.

Sustainable Production Consumption Systems brings together a set of designed case studies intended to provide a more in-depth understanding of challenges and opportunities in bringing knowledge and actions closer together for the sustainable management of specific production and consumption systems. The case study approach enabled researchers to engage directly with some of the actors involved in the production, consumption or regulation of specific goods or services and other stakeholders affected by those processes. Such engagement was particularly worthwhile when it helped mobilize actors to pursue linking knowledge with action in ways that improve the prospects for sustainability.

AbstractThis volume follows failures out into the world, exploring how they unfold ethnographically. Taking a longer view shows how objects, narratives, and diagnoses of failures may be crafted, acted on, suffered, resisted – unmade or recomposed. Thus while tropes and diagnoses of failure can temporarily (re)organize, narrate, and stabilize the world, the kinds of failures explored here also indicate a mode of uncontainable excess that refuses the boundedness of knowledge objects, temporalities, and spaces. This volume offers three main interventions. The first concerns knowledge production: how objects of failure are crafted through selective ways of knowing that occlude both other modes of apprehension at different scales and failure's many affective valences. The second thinks through the knotted temporalities – whether pasts, futures, suspended presents, or repetition and sedimentation – that make and are made by failure. Finally, writing about unfurling failures requires careful attention to non‐linear reverberations and traces as well as to open‐ended and mobile narratives that produce different social and material effects.

The following arguments are in support of a "renegotiation of the terms of knowledge production" (Horáková 2016: 47). By doing so, this essay sides with demands by others (for example, Keim et al 2014) that "the need to move towards non-hegemonic forms of cooperation between academic realms and forms of knowledge is a practical-material as well as an intellectual task", while "no success can be achieved without relentless criticisms on inhered spurious certainties" (Lagos 2015). Last but not least, this reasoning is influenced by the conviction that 'neutral' knowledge in a value-free vacuum detached from social interests does not exist: "ways of knowing and resulting bodies of knowledge are always historical and they are deeply political" (Bliesemann and Kostic 2017: 6). By pointing to the relevance of hierarchical structures and power, this essay concurswith Halvorsen (2016: 303) that, "the academic profession must rid itself once and for all of the notion that knowledge is invariably 'positive', that every question has one correct answer (the truth), and that this is to be obtained through one correct method". After all —… knowledge of Africa has been produced within what we might define as a Western episteme. The theoretical, conceptual and methodological resources through which Africa is to this day rendered visible and intelligible speak from a place, about that place and in accordance with criteria of plausibility that use that particular place as the normative standard for truth (Macamo 2016: 326).I concur with Smith (1999) that true decolonisation is supposed to be concerned with having a "(m)ore critical understanding of the underlying assumptions, motivations and values that inform research practices" (Wilson 2001: 214). This is a necessary reminder that we should always include critical reflections when interStrategic Review for Southern Africa, Vol 40, No 1 Henning Melber rogating our own internalised value systems, which we often tend to understandand apply unchallenged as the dominant (if not only) norm.

This volume sheds light on the nexus between knowledge and literature. Arranged historically, contributions address both popular and canonical English and US-American writing from the early modern period to the present. They focus on how historically specific texts engage with epistemological questions in relation to material and social forms as well as representation. The authors discuss literature as a culturally embedded form of knowledge production in its own right, which deploys narrative and poetic means of exploration to establish an independent and sometimes dissident archive. The worlds that imaginary texts project are shown to open up alternative perspectives to be reckoned with in the academic articulation and public discussion of issues in economics and the sciences, identity formation and wellbeing, legal rationale and political decision-making.

There remains a serious lack of a comprehensive examination of academic dependency, decolonization, and indigenization in China and East Asia. Our special issue is intended to fill this gap by situating this issue in the Chinese context, thanks to China's extraordinary leaps in its economy and higher education and enhanced indigenizing movements. In particular, we hope to open a new dialog on the dynamic relationship between the rise of China, academic (and other) dependency, and global knowledge production. Our findings show that China's rise complicates and enriches our understanding of dependency. For instance, despite the state-orchestrated indigenization in Chinese academia and China's potential role as a new global hub of knowledge production, its academia, especially social science, is still highly dependent upon the Western academic center for ideas and recognition. This is partly exemplified by the fact that Chinese universities attach great importance to Western-acknowledged academic excellence through the global university rankings. However, we argue that the existing academic dependency theory fails to capture and explain this complex situation. In so doing, we call for a paradigm shift in rethinking academic dependency by placing it in the multilayered and multi-domain dependency circumstances and conditions. In advancing this agenda, we advocate a field-grounded and cross-disciplinary approach.

Cover -- Title Page -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Epigraph -- Contents -- Preface -- Introduction. An "I" That Is "We": Revisiting the Epistemic Potential of Collective Truth Telling -- Part I: Telling Stories, Writing Praxis: Decolonizing Knowledge Production -- 1. Situating Testimonio: A Spirit of Resistance in Textual Form -- 2. Feminism, Epistemology, and Experience -- 3. Constructing Feminist Transnational Bridges through Polyvocal Praxis -- Part II: Transnational Translations -- 4. Activist "Co/Labor/Actions": Polyvocality, Pedagogy, and Praxis -- 5. Resisting Representational Stasis: Dialogic Collaborations in Flux -- Part III: Testifying to the Politics of the Imagined -- 6. "Sometimes My Geographies Get Jumbled": The Temporal and Spatial Disruptions of Living Memory -- 7. Cultivating Community through Creative Communication -- Part IV: Storytelling the Archive -- 8. Retransmissions: Reaching across Languages, Genres, and Readerships with Danticat's Multilingual "Fake-lore -- 9. Diasporic Consciousness and Realism in Behind the Mountains and Brother, I'm Dying -- Postscript. Countering Restriction with Expansion: Cultivating Kaleidoscopic Counterpublics -- Notes -- References -- Index -- A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- K -- L -- M -- N -- O -- P -- R -- S -- T -- U -- V -- W.

Research scientists have become increasingly dependent on collaborations across laboratories and organizations to maintain their productivity. However, the increased specialization of individual laboratories works against the current drive toward understanding systems in the sciences. Consequently, there is a tension between the rising importance of collaborative efforts and the practical and structural challenges in establishing and managing such collaborations. Combining ethnographic case studies of three biology research labs with network data of their larger scientific community, we explore the changing process of scientific knowledge production in the age of Big Science. We find that virtual technologies open up the knowledge process as scientists have easier access to data, publications, and each other. At the same time, we find that these technologies—specifically scientific databases—do not eradicate the social aspects of scientific knowledge production as collaborative structures in science remain relatively unchanged. We discuss the implications for theory and practice of this seemingly contradictory character of scientific knowledge production.