scholarly journals Looking Forward: A Beloved (Epistemic) Community?

2015 ◽  
pp. 215-231
Keyword(s):  
Epistemic Community

scholarly journals Reform in the international food aid regime: the role of consensual knowledge

1992 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 225-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond F. Hopkins
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Epistemic Community ◽  
Food Aid ◽  
Local Production ◽  
Short Term ◽  
The 1950S ◽  
Food Imports

The principles and norms adopted by the regime governing food aid in the 1950s have changed substantially during the subsequent three decades. Explaining the changes necessarily includes analyzing the efforts of an international epistemic community consisting of economic development specialists, agricultural economists, and administrators of food aid. According to the initial regime principles, food aid should be provided from donors' own surplus stocks, should supplement the usual commercial food imports in recipient countries, should be given under short-term commitments sensitive to the political and economic goals of donors, and should directly feed hungry people. As a result of following these principles, the epistemic community and other critics argued, food aid often had the adverse effects of reducing local production of food in recipient countries and exacerbating rather than alleviating hunger. The epistemic community (1) developed and proposed ideas for more efficiently supplying food aid and avoiding “disincentive” effects and (2) pushed for reforms to make food aid serve as the basis for the recipients' economic development and to target it at addressing long-term food security problems. The ideas of the international epistemic community have increasingly received support from international organizations and the governments of donor and recipient nations. Most recently, they have led to revisions of the U.S. food aid program passed by Congress in October 1990 and signed into law two months later. As the analysis of food aid reform demonstrates, changes in the international regime have been incremental, rather than radical. Moreover, the locus for the change has shifted from an American-centered one in the 1950s to a more international one in recent decades.

Reading Recovery as an Epistemic Community

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald J. Peurach ◽  
Joshua L. Glazer
Keyword(s):  
Reading Recovery ◽  
Epistemic Community

scholarly journals Security expertise and international hierarchy: the case of ‘The Asia-Pacific Epistemic Community’

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 494-515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Björn Jerdén
Keyword(s):  
East Asia ◽  
Social Order ◽  
International Security ◽  
East Asian ◽  
Epistemic Community ◽  
Political Order ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
The Political ◽  
Regional Stability ◽  
General Explanation

AbstractMany states partially relinquish sovereignty in return for physical protection from a more powerful state. Mainstream theory on international hierarchies holds that such decisions are based on rational assessments of the relative qualities of the political order being offered. Such assessments, however, are bound to be contingent, and as such a reflection of the power to shape understandings of reality. Through a study of the remarkably persistent US-led security hierarchy in East Asia, this article puts forward the concept of the ‘epistemic community’ as a general explanation of how such understandings are shaped and, hence, why states accept subordinate positions in international hierarchies. The article conceptualises a transnational and multidisciplinary network of experts on international security – ‘The Asia-Pacific Epistemic Community’ – and demonstrates how it operates to convince East Asian policymakers that the current US-led social order is the best choice for maintaining regional ‘stability’.

scholarly journals Conceptualizing environmental governance on the GBM basin

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marufa Akter
Keyword(s):  
River Water ◽  
South Asian ◽  
Environmental Governance ◽  
Water Governance ◽  
Ecological Integrity ◽  
Regional Governance ◽  
Epistemic Community ◽  
Resource Governance ◽  
Lower Stream ◽  
Gbm Basin

River water sharing is an issue that is dealt by the South Asian neighboring countries for the last four decades. Water management of Ganges–Brahmaputra Meghna (GBM) basin is a controversial issue, which is not yet developed as a regional cooperative mechanism. The GBM river basin countries also represent the projection of relative power differences among its upper stream and lower stream countries. Considering the geopolitical context and hydro-politics of the region, the study examines potential scopes for effective regional governance to GBM’s ecological integrity and to share common river water among China, Bhutan, Nepal, India and Bangladesh. The study uses Rittberger et al. (2006) explanatory model (that explains three conditions—Problem, Cognitive and Hegemonic conditions) in the development of multilateral organizations in GBM region. The study deals with the question—what conditions facilitate GBM based water governance among five main riparian countries (upstream and downstream) in resolving the water scarcity challenges in the region. The paper argues that realization of shortage of water and environmental degradation as an interdependent problem, influence of an inclusive epistemic community (cognitive condition) and a hegemonic leadership (power is willing to accept the relative gain of others states for the absolute gain of itself)—are required to foster water resource governance of the GBM for sustainable development of the region.

scholarly journals Avvai- An Epistemic Advantage

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Ugin Rositta M
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Construction ◽  
Educational Philosophy ◽  
Social Scientist ◽  
Literary Work ◽  
Epistemic Community ◽  
Ultimate Truth ◽  
Future Researcher ◽  
Cognitive Success ◽  
Scholarly Contribution ◽  
The Individual

Tamil world always owe its tribute to Avvai for her scholarly contribution. Desire to do virtue is an iconic statement of this great personality who perceived to be an epistemic advantage.  The purpose of this article is to examine her work as a children literary creator and to explore her cognitive success in terms of Educational Philosophy. Her literary contribution plays a major role in identifying the Tamil community as an epistemic community. The pattern of knowledge construction employed by Avvai enhances the individual to explore knowledge, to discover the ultimate truth and establishing virtue. This article is known for its analysis of the literary work and social dialogues chose to add Avvai’s commitment to establishing that education is a way to subdue the senses and achieve reality. This piece of research ignites a spark to future researcher to view Avvai as a social scientist rather than a Tamil scholar with reference to the normative principles established in her work.

scholarly journals A Taxonomy for the Social Agents of Scientific Change

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 55-62
Author(s):  
Nicholas Overgaard
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Epistemic Community ◽  
Epistemic Communities ◽  
Scientific Change ◽  
Collective Intentionality ◽  
Social Agents ◽  
Social Agent ◽  
The Social ◽  
The World ◽  
Definition Of

Although we accept that a scientific mosaic is a set of theories and methods accepted and employed by a scientific community, scientific community currently lacks a proper definition in scientonomy. In this paper, I will outline a basic taxonomy for the bearers of a mosaic, i.e. the social agents of scientific change. I begin by differentiating between accidental group and community through the respective absence and presence of a collective intentionality. I then identify two subtypes of community: the epistemic community that has a collective intentionality to know the world, and the non-epistemic community that does not have such a collective intentionality. I note that both epistemic and non-epistemic communities might bear mosaics, but that epistemic communities are the intended social agents of scientific change because their main collective intentionality is to know the world and, in effect, to change their mosaics. I conclude my paper by arguing we are not currently in a position to properly define scientific community per se because of the risk of confusing pseudoscientific communities with scientific communities. However, I propose that we can for now rely on the definition of epistemic community as the proper social agent of scientific change.Suggested Modifications[Sciento-2017-0012]: Accept the following taxonomy of group, accidental group, and community:Group ≡ two or more people who share any characteristic.Accidental group ≡ a group that does not have a collective intentionality.Community ≡ a group that has a collective intentionality. [Sciento-2017-0013]: Provided that the preceding modification [Sciento-2017-0012] is accepted, accept that communities can consist of other communities.[Sciento-2017-0014]: Provided that modification [Sciento-2017-0012] is accepted, accept the following definitions of epistemic community and non-epistemic community as subtypes of community:Epistemic community ≡ a community that has a collective intentionality to know the world.Non-epistemic community ≡ a community that does not have a collective intentionality to know the world.[Sciento-2017-0015]: Provideed that modification [Sciento-2017-0013] and [Sciento-2017-0014] are accepted, accept that a non-epistemic community can consist of epistemic communities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document