scholarly journals Imperial straightening devices in disciplinary choices of academic knowledge production

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenna Cushing-Leubner ◽  
Mel M Engman ◽  
Johanna Ennser-Kananen ◽  
Nicole Pettitt
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Material Production ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Academic Scholarship ◽  
Language Research

Abstract In this piece, the authors question whether critical language research, in its complex collection of researcher choices, is possible beyond the discursive imaginary of critical academic scholarship. In other words, how do (allegedly) anticolonial efforts re-orient towards contribution to the imperial record? We present three vignettes, through which we grapple with the notion that researcher choice exists within the solipsism of academia. In doing so, we frame research and scholarship as a collection of choices, which we believe are better understood as a collection of fraught dilemmas. These dilemmas recognize that all academic scholarship production and its processes are birthed from, and serve, an epistemology of hierarchical social configurations, which serve empire maintenance and expansion. As critical language scholars who bring overlapping and distinct sociopolitical, geographic, and methodological positionalities, these autoethnographic narrative vignettes allow us to begin to see the landscape of researcher choice in the processes and projects of accumulating knowledge production. We identify imperial straightening devices for legitimization into the imperial archive and examine how they work to orient and re-orient critical language scholars towards the ideological and material production of the imperial archive.

scholarly journals Anthropological Renga

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (1-2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Gatt
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Collaborative Work ◽  
Cultural Critique ◽  
Performance Training ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Academic Scholarship

I am investigating performance training as an exploratory mode of inquiry. In conjunction with this I ask how may performative enquiry together with anthropological ways of working lead to sustainable forms of academic knowledge production. The underlying aim of my project is to find ways to decolonise academic scholarship that transcend the apparent complacency that cultural critique has proffered (Escobar and Restrepo 2005). An anthropology otherwise, in resonance with Escobar and Restrepo’s manifesto, in which I am exploring a recrafting of what anthropologists make. This needs to include who they make it for, in other words who anthropologists are accountable to, as well as the expected ‘products’ of their scholarly endeavours. This paper is an afterthought on the Walking Threads and how the event can further our understanding in collaborative work.

Academic knowledge production and prefigurative politics

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (267-268) ◽  
pp. 163-167
Author(s):  
Beatriz P. Lorente
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Structural Characteristic ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Means And Ends ◽  
Sociology Of Language ◽  
Prefigurative Politics ◽  
Access Model

Abstract Inequality is the pervasive structural characteristic of academic knowledge production. To dismantle this inequality, the challenge raised by prefigurative politics which is based on an ethos of congruence between means and ends must be taken up by the International Journal of the Sociology of Language. The IJSL’s peer review process, its academic conventions and its access model can potentially be spaces for concrete practices that prefigure parity in academic knowledge production.

scholarly journals Considering Indigenous Research Methodologies: Critical Reflections by an Indigenous Knower

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph P. Gone
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Ways Of Knowing ◽  
Indigenous Studies ◽  
Indigenous Research ◽  
Research Methodologies ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Indigenous Epistemologies ◽  
Indigenous Research Methodologies ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
University Settings

Within the domain of academic inquiry by Indigenous scholars, it is increasingly common to encounter enthusiasm surrounding Indigenous Research Methodologies (IRMs). IRMs are designated approaches and procedures for conducting research that are said to reflect long-subjugated Indigenous epistemologies (or ways of knowing). A common claim within this nascent movement is that IRMs express logics that are unique and distinctive from academic knowledge production in “Western” university settings, and that IRMs can result in innovative contributions to knowledge if and when they are appreciated in their own right and on their own terms. The purpose of this article is to stimulate exchange and dialogue about the present and future prospects of IRMs relative to university-based academic knowledge production. To that end, I enter a critical voice to an ongoing conversation about these matters that is still taking shape within Indigenous studies circles.

scholarly journals The Ladies Vanish?

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 519-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Luo ◽  
Julia Adams ◽  
Hannah Brueckner
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
History Of Sociology ◽  
American Sociology ◽  
Representation Of Women ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Disciplinary History ◽  
History Of

AbstractMany notable female sociologists have vanished from the canonical history of American sociology. As the most influential crowd-sourced encyclopedia, Wikipedia promises – but does not necessarily deliver – a democratic corrective to the generation of knowledge, including academic knowledge. This article explores multiple mechanisms by which women either enter or disappear from the disciplinary record by analyzing the unfolding interaction between the canonical disciplinary history of sociology and Wikipedia. We argue that the uneven representation of women sociologists as (1) remembered, (2) neglected, (3) erased or, finally, (4) recovered is shaped by the emerging interactional space of knowledge production.

scholarly journals Managing by measuring: Academic knowledge production under the ranks

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik Nylander ◽  
Robert Aman ◽  
Anders Hallqvist ◽  
Anna Malmquist ◽  
Fredrik Sandberg
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Academic Knowledge

scholarly journals Indigenous Knowledges and Scholarly Publishing

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-40
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Boyd
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Sound Source ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
White Male ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Editorial Process ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Intended Purpose ◽  
Peer Reviewers

At its core, academic knowledge production is predicated on Western notions of knowledge historically grounded in a Euro-American, White, male worldview. As a component of academic knowledge production, scholarly publishing shares the same basis of Whiteness. It excludes knowledge that doesn’t conform to White, Western notions of knowledge, forces conformity to (and therefore reinforcement of) a Western standard of writing/knowledge, and leads to a reverence of peer-reviewed literature as the only sound source of knowledge. As a tool of scholarly publishing and the editorial process, blind peer review, though perhaps well-intentioned, is fraught with problems, especially for BIPOC researchers and writers, because it fails in its intended purpose to drastically reduce or eliminate bias and racism in the peer review and editorial processes; shields peer reviewers and editors against accusations of bias, racism, or conflicts of interest; and robs BIPOC, and particularly Indigenous, writers and researchers from having the opportunity to develop relationships with those that are reviewing and publishing their work.

scholarly journals Editorial: Joining the Conversation

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 197-201
Author(s):  
PAUL RAE
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
International Federation ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Annual Conference ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Contemporary Theatre ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Native Speakers Of English

In my previous editorial, I made reference to what Theresa Lillis and Mary Jane Curry call ‘literacy brokering’ amongst non-native speakers of English who seek to publish in anglophone academic journals. The term ‘literacy’ makes sense in the context, and, as I noted, the practice is hardly exclusive to those whose first language is not English. However, as Aoife Monks of Contemporary Theatre Review and I planned a New Scholars session on academic publishing for this year's annual conference of the International Federation for Theatre Research (IFTR, with which this journal is affiliated), a supplementary way of thinking about academic knowledge production came to mind: as conversation. And it is a conversational mode that wends its way through the articles presented in this issue of Theatre Research International.

Multiple temporalities of knowing in academic research

2015 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Smith
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Functional Relationship ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Ways Of Knowing ◽  
Ethnographic Research ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Academic Researchers ◽  
Crisis Of Modernity ◽  
The Relationship

Based on ethnographic research at five Czech universities from 2011 to 2013, this article explores how academics make sense of and claims to three qualitatively distinct temporal regimes in which their activities as knowledge producers are inscribed: disciplinary time, career time and project time. This conceptual framework, a modification of Shinn’s distinction between disciplinary, transitory and transversal knowledge-production regimes, seeks to replace images of competition and succession between regimes with images of their recombination and intersection. It enables an interpretation of the empirical findings beyond the indigenous complaint that excessive speed is compromising the quality of knowledge production. The relationship between projects, careers and disciplines emerges from the study as problematic rather than synergistic. In this respect the paper does not contradict the claim by critical theorists that we are witnessing the disintegration of what used to be a functional relationship between the multiple temporalities of academic knowledge production based on standardized career scripts, nor the related claim that this may reflect a deeper crisis of modernity as a predictive regime for the production of futures. It proposes, however, that transversal projects can still be mediators of ‘disciplinary respiration’ insofar as their timeframes are available for variable calibration commensurate with the increasingly heteronomous ways of knowing and knowledge routines that academic researchers practise.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document