Wearables Design: Epistemic Cultures and Laboratory Performances

Author(s):  
Valérie Lamontagne
Keyword(s):  
2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
KARIN KNORR CETINA
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne Koch

Scientific conferences are not only sites of knowledge exchange and networking. They are also spaces of valuation that are constitutive of epistemic cultures. At conferences, scholars (re-) negotiate what counts as good research, what kind of scholarship is considered valuable and which epistemic properties matter for their field. This negotiation sometimes happens explicitly, but more often through evaluative acts: statements of reasoning and justification, questions and remarks, and evaluative emotional utterances that include literal and figurative expressions of appreciation, scepticism, rejection, etc. Combining conference ethnography with a pragmatic approach borrowing insights from linguistics offers a way to identify and interpret such evaluative acts in conference talk. An analysis of data from the 3rd International Forest Policy Meeting (IFPM3), a virtual event with participants from across the globe, serves as illustrative case. Text materials generated through observing participation (field notes, transcripts, chat comments and abstracts) show how forest policy researchers ascribe worth to studies characterised by methodical rigour and praxis orientation, and guided by an objectivistic ideal of science. However, the latter was also challenged by panelists who enthusiatically appraised reflexive research that acknowledged the role of emotions in knowledge production.The IFPM3 case shows that conferences offer a unique space for observing academic valuation practice. Exploring how scholars enact values through conference discourse will not only help to better understand the specificities of particular research fields and their epistemic cultures. It can also more generally enhance the understanding of how social and epistemic levels in science intersect.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4-1) ◽  
pp. 139-153
Author(s):  
Nataliya Kanaeva ◽  

The article continues the polemics on the problems of interaction of philosophical cultures in the era of globalization, which was started at the meetings of the Round Table "Geography of Rationality". The author gives answers to critical questions, explains the methodology and principles of her work with Indian philosophical texts. A short research of the meta-term "cognitive subject" is an example of her methods. The analysis of cognitive subject aimed to justify the absence of the concepts of reason and rationality in Indian epistemic culture, the cornerstones of Western epistemic culture, since Modern times. The justification was carried out by comparing the generalized model of the cognitive subject, abstracted from the writings of empiricists and rationalists of the XVII–XVIII centuries, with the generalized models of the cognitive subject, reconstructed on the basis of authoritative writings of three variants of Indian epistemological teachings: Advaita Vedānta, Jainism and Buddhism. From the author's point of view, the absence of the concepts of reason and rationality in India leads to the non-classical problem of pluralism of epistemic cultures, and the exploration of the meta-term "cognitive subject" allows us to find, on the one hand, intersections in the contents of epistemologies in Indian philosophy and Western metaphysics of Modern times, and on the other, their incompatible contents, which are specific manifestations of pluralism of epistemic cultures. For her reconstruction of the cognitive subject models the author takes the principle of "double perspective" in combination with the methods of hermeneutical and logical analysis of philosophical terms. The principle determinates the consideration of the theoretical object from two sides: European and Indian. Having appeared in the Western epistemic culture, these methods effectively work to objectify the results of socio-humanitarian research, thanks to which they are becoming increasingly widespread among non-Western cross-cultural philosophers. When the author applies the method of logical analysis to justify the absence of the concepts of reason and rationality in India, she is guided by the rules of logical semantics and the principles of semiotics. The compared terms, Western and Indian, are considered as signs with their own meanings and senses. The senses are understood as sets of predicates important for solving the author’s task. The author of the article, taking into account the experience of famous philosophers, negatively assesses the possibility of solving the problem of unambiguously correct translation.


2020 ◽  
pp. 140-155
Author(s):  
Yigal Godler ◽  
Zvi Reich
Keyword(s):  

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 43-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katarina L. Gidlund

There exists a vast amount of different texts (policy documents, guidelines, action plans etc.) with the aim of stipulating the road forward for digitalisation of public sector, and an often used rationale for digitalisation is that the use of digitalised services will stimulate efficiency, reduce costs and at the same time enhance service quality. This is also often coupled with the idea that guarantee of success can be found participatory practices. This paper aims to disclose some of the underpinnings to the above logic by a closer analysis of ‘the who, the why and how' of involving participators in digitalization of public sector. This paper uses a combination of discourse analysis and a Bourdieuan inspired use of the concept of epistemic cultures as an analytical framework to disentangle the notion of a participatory eGovernment development. The empirical case is a text analysis of a national action plan for digitalisation and the results of the analysis unfold two interesting notions; 1) three conflicting notions of for whom, why and how this is done, and 2) the consequences of conflicting epistemic cultures for practitioners to solve in the everyday practice when customer-oriented market logics are naively linked with democratically oriented inclusive participatory decision processes; two not so easily combined ideologies.


2005 ◽  
Vol 70 (6) ◽  
pp. 992-1010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grégoire Mallard

Drawing insights from the ethnographies in the natural sciences, which have focused on the role of technical instruments in laboratory practices, this article asks, “What role do technical instruments play in the humanities?” Editions of La Comédie humaine, written by Honoré de Balzac, are taken as a case study. Primarily based on ethnographic research with Balzac scholars, this article traces the evolution of Balzac's text from a unified and unadorned text in the 1930s, to a single annotated text in the critical edition of the 1970s, and to a searchable electronic format of different versions. The author shows that the different schools of interpretation in Balzac criticism (traditional, semioticians, socio-critics) constructed these diverse editing technologies to influence the evolution of literary theories. For instance, traditional scholars' theory of authorship entertains en elective affinity with the critical edition of La Comédie humaine. Sociocritics challenged its assumptions and constructed electronic editions to develop their own theories, particularly on the genesis and reception of Balzac's texts. By focusing on the epistemic cultures in which research practices are embedded, this case study complements purely institutionalist perspectives on knowledge-production in the academic field and highlights the presence of diverse epistemic cultures in literary criticism.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document