scholarly journals Regional Dimension in Knowledge Production in Hungary

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (Special Issue) ◽  
pp. 247-264
Author(s):  
Endre Spaller ◽  
László Vasa
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
The Other

Know­ledge flow is de­scribed by two con­tra­dict­ing the­or­ies. One of them claims that know­ledge can only be put in prac­tice if in ad­di­tion to writ­ten ele­ments, its tacit parts can also be trans­ferred. This is why prox­im­ity and a com­mon cul­ture mat­ter, and RDI (re­search, de­vel­op­ment and in­nov­a­tion) in­tense activ­it­ies tend to spa­tially con­cen­trate. Ac­cord­ing to the other the­ory, gov­ern­mental RDI ex­pendit­ure is a good way to re­duce re­gional gaps. In this paper EU’s Ho­ri­zon 2020 re­search fund­ing frame­work data is ana­lysed and ef­forts are made at de­cid­ing which the­ory is con­firmed by them. Should the lead­ers in in­nov­a­tion have a dif­fer­ent RDI policy than those with poorer RDI res­ults? An over­view is given of the main policy de­bates that form and in­flu­ence na­tional and supra­na­tional re­search, de­vel­op­ment and in­nov­a­tion policy frame­works and sub­sid­ising sys­tems. The cur­rent state of the Hun­garian RDI sec­tor is de­scribed and con­clu­sions are drawn on sub­sid­isa­tion policy in light of the H2020 data.

Art Criticism in the Contracted Field1

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Bowman
Keyword(s):  
Contemporary Art ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Art Criticism ◽  
The Other ◽  
Potential Contribution ◽  
Roundtable Discussion ◽  
Cultural Field ◽  
Intellectual Labor ◽  
Critical Discourses

Abstract Just over a decade-and-a-half ago, a roundtable discussion published in the pages of October worried that the periodic renewal of critical discourses had slowed to a standstill and that art criticism was faced with obsolescence. Such an obsolescence should be understood in a broadly Hegelian manner: the danger is not that art criticism would disappear from the cultural field, but that it will continue—although drained of its previous necessity. Such fears perhaps run the risk of exaggeration, yet this article shall suggest that there seems a sense in which the field of art criticism has contracted in recent years. Self-reflexivity in art and the popularization of “para-curatorial” approaches, for instance, often underpin the artwork discursively before the arrival of art criticism upon the scene. To be sure, such circumstances are viewable positively as interdisciplinary dialogical opportunities, but the negative flipside here is that art criticism’s potential contribution becomes increasingly minimized. From another angle, critics such as Isabelle Graw have contended that the economic-cultural regime of post-Fordism, with its attention on intellectual labor and knowledge production, might actually hold possibilities for the contemporary art critic—but even here, I argue, art criticism becomes contracted, albeit in the other meaning of the word.

“The Other Side”: Assessing the Polarization of Gender Knowledge Through a Feminist Analysis of the Affective-Discursive in Anti-Feminist Online Communities

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann-Kathrin Rothermel
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Online Communities ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Knowledge Generation ◽  
Close Reading ◽  
The Public ◽  
Production Building ◽  
Gender Knowledge

Abstract Given the current polarization of gender knowledge in the public discourse, this article investigates the “other side” of gender knowledge production. Building on feminist standpoint literature, I conduct a close reading of the affective-discursive dynamics of knowledge production in two anti-feminist online communities in the United States and India. I find that anti-feminist communities appropriate feminist practices of consciousness-raising to construct a shared sense of victimization. This appropriation is, however, incomplete. In contrast to feminist practices, anti-feminist knowledge generation is premised on the polarizing themes of “ultimate victimhood” and “ultimate other,” which lead to violence and exclusion, rather than liberation.

Interpreting the Uninterpretable: The Ethics of Opaqueness as an Approach to Moments of Inscrutability in Fieldwork

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 431-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xymena Kurowska
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
The Self ◽  
The Other ◽  
Relational Psychoanalysis ◽  
The Unconscious ◽  
Construction Of Meaning ◽  
Narrative Practice

Abstract This paper develops what I call “the ethics of opaqueness” as a response to conceptual impasses concerning the uninterpretability of intersubjective knowledge production in narrative practice. The ethics of opaqueness sees the other as inscrutable and radically heterogenous, and confronts interpretations of the other by the self as suspicious projections. Thus, such an ethics addresses the self, not the other, as the object of the “hermeneutics of suspicion.” In order to conceptualize the ethics of opaqueness, I look to relational psychoanalysis, which understands the unconscious as being inherently intersubjective. This results in a reformulation of the process of recognition, and deeper acknowledgment of countertransference—that is, the partly unconscious conflicts activated in the researcher through the research encounter, which may lead to imposing meaning on the other. The apparatus of relational psychoanalysis concretizes the limits of knowing either the other or the self and supplies a vocabulary to crystallize the double quality of “uninterpretable moments” in narrative practice. They may trigger an imposition of a frame and therefore an interpretive closure; however, they also supply a potentially transformative space for the contentious co-construction of meaning, often in the form of metaphors, which subverts any claim to interpretive mastery.

scholarly journals Anthropology and Open Access

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 236-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Baird Jackson ◽  
Ryan Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Cultural Anthropology ◽  
Special Section ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
The Other ◽  
Interview Format ◽  
Practical Information ◽  
Critical Anthropology ◽  
Gold Open Access

In an article coauthored in interview format, the authors introduce open-access practices in an anthropological context. Complementing the other essays in this special section on open access, on the occasion of Cultural Anthropology’s move to one version of the gold open access business model, the focus here is on practical information needed by publishing cultural anthropologists. Despite this limitation, the authors work to touch on the ethical and political contexts of open access. They argue for a critical anthropology of scholarly communication (inclusive of scholarly publishing), one that brings the kinds of engaged analysis for which Cultural Anthropology is particularly well known to bear on this vital aspect of knowledge production, circulation, and valuation.

Epistemological eclecticism: Difference and the ‘Other’ in the Balkans and beyond

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Čarna Brković
Keyword(s):  
20Th Century ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
The Other ◽  
Critical Reading ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
Production Of Knowledge ◽  
The Status ◽  
Background Assumption ◽  
Western European ◽  
19Th And 20Th Century

This article's concern is epistemological in that it seeks understanding of the nature of ethnographic knowledge production. Its background assumption is that decolonization of anthropology requires decolonization of anthropological epistemology. The article argues that anthropology is not so much a study of the ‘Other’, but an effort to acquire knowledge by translating across some sort of socio-historically established difference. Anthropologists do not acquire knowledge necessarily by translating between modern, Western European, and non-modern, ‘Other’ conceptual arrangements. Instead, the anthropological production of knowledge requires an effort to figure out the relevant differences and similarities between an anthropologist, their interlocutors, and their audiences, as well as a translation across these differences and similarities. In order to demonstrate this point, the article focuses on 19th- and 20th-century ethnographic discussions of rural joint families called zadruga in the Balkans. Through a critical reading of two works on zadruga, it demonstrates that anthropologists in the Balkans were epistemologically eclectic, in that they could make use of strategies of both ‘anthropology abroad’ and ‘auto-anthropology’, or combine and reverse them. While this instance of epistemological eclecticism is the result of widespread uncertainties concerning the status of the ‘modern’ and the ‘non-modern’ as organizational categories in the Balkans, it has direct implications for the production of anthropological knowledge generally.

scholarly journals A feminist ethos for caring knowledge production in transdisciplinary sustainability science

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel K. Staffa ◽  
Maraja Riechers ◽  
Berta Martín-López
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Power Relations ◽  
Sustainability Science ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
The Other ◽  
Academic Cultures ◽  
Transformative Potential ◽  
Epistemic Violence ◽  
Collaborative Knowledge ◽  
Taking Care

AbstractTransdisciplinary Sustainability Science has emerged as a viable answer to current sustainability crises with the aim to strengthen collaborative knowledge production. To expand its transformative potential, we argue that Transdisciplinary Sustainability Science needs to thoroughly engage with questions of unequal power relations and hierarchical scientific constructs. Drawing on the work of the feminist philosopher María Puig de la Bellacasa, we examine a feminist ethos of care which might provide useful guidance for sustainability researchers who are interested in generating critical-emancipatory knowledge. A feminist ethos of care is constituted by three interrelated modes of knowledge production: (1) thinking-with, (2) dissenting-within and (3) thinking-for. These modes of thinking and knowing enrich knowledge co-production in Transdisciplinary Sustainability Science by (i) embracing relational ontologies, (ii) relating to the ‘other than human’, (iii) cultivating caring academic cultures, (iv) taking care of non-academic research partners, (v) engaging with conflict and difference, (vi) interrogating positionalities and power relations through reflexivity, (vii) building upon marginalised knowledges via feminist standpoints and (viii) countering epistemic violence within and beyond academia. With our paper, we aim to make a specific feminist contribution to the field of Transdisciplinary Sustainability Science and emphasise its potentials to advance this field.

scholarly journals Research as social practice: the researcher and the "other" in knowledge production

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 325
Author(s):  
Emerson Rasera ◽  
Carla Guanaes-Lorenzi ◽  
Clarissa Corradi-Webster
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Social Practice ◽  
The Other

scholarly journals Power, Knowledge, and Epistemic Delinking

2017 ◽  
pp. 105
Author(s):  
Aneta Stojnić
Keyword(s):  
Media Studies ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Power Relations ◽  
Postcolonial Theory ◽  
Postcolonial Studies ◽  
The Other ◽  
Political Implications ◽  
Global Power ◽  
Epistemic Violence ◽  
Central Argument

In this paper I shall argue that radical epistemic delinking has a key role in liberation from the Colonial Matrix of Power as well as the change in the existing global power relations which are based in the colonialism and maintained through exploitation, expropriation and construction of the (racial) Other. Those power relations render certain bodies and spaces as (epistemologically) irrelevant. In order to discuss possible models of struggle against such condition, firstly I have addressed the relation between de-colonial theories and postcolonial studies, arguing that decolonial positions are both historicising and re-politicising the postcolonial theory. In my central argument I have focused on the epistemic delinking and political implications of decolonial turn. With reference to Grada Killomba I have argued for the struggle against epistemic violence through decolonising knowledge. Decolonising knowledge requires delinking form Eurocentric model of knowledge production and radical dismantling the existing hierarchies among different knowledge. It requires recognition of the ‘Other epistemologies’ and ‘Other knowledge’ as well as liberation from Western disciplinary and methodological limitations. One of the main goals of decolonial project is deinking from the Colonial Matrix of Power. However, delinking is not required only in the areas of economy and politics but also in the field of epistemology. Article received: June 15, 2017; Article accepted: June 26, 2017; Published online: October 15, 2017; Original scholarly paperHow to cite this article: Stojnić, Aneta. "Power, Knowledge, and Epistemic Delinking." AM Journal of Art and Media Studies 14 (2017): 105-111. doi: 10.25038/am.v0i14.218

Chiasmatic crossings: A reflexive revisit of a research encounter in European security

2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xymena Kurowska ◽  
Benjamin C. Tallis
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Participant Observation ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Security ◽  
Normative Authority ◽  
Security Research ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The One ◽  
Knowledge Claims

This article makes an argument about chiasmatic knowledge production that seeks to cut across the entrenched division between the subject and object of inquiry, on the one hand, and the narrative and normative authority of the scholar, on the other, that is inherent in most writing in international relations. We revisit our own research encounter in the field of European security to explore the premises and implications of fieldwork relationships between researchers and practitioners and show their potentially transformative effects. Classifying such engagements as acts of professional transgression by both sets of parties overlooks their promise to facilitate the understanding of security practice ‘from within’ and to provide for tangible scholarly and political criticality. It is argued that, in the restricted realm of security, extensive interaction with practitioners could be a proxy for participant observation. Yet, we look further than that. We develop a concept of ‘chiasmatic crossings’ that reflects and helps theorize the ideational give-and-take and conceptual ruptures in the process of co-authorship that are indicative of distinct trajectories in European security research. This challenges the knowledge claims and static positions of both ‘problem-solving’ and ‘critical’ scholars in the field.

Comments on Bulterman-Bos: Research Relevancy or Research for Change?

2008 ◽  
Vol 37 (7) ◽  
pp. 429-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan E. Noffke
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Action Research ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
The Other ◽  
Practitioner Inquiry ◽  
Global Changes ◽  
The Core ◽  
Political Dimensions ◽  
Production Demand

Three issues emanating from the Bulterman-Bos article (2008) form the core of this commentary. First, the issue of relevancy is addressed from the standpoint of action research and other forms of practitioner inquiry. From this perspective, the divisions between the cultures of university and school are addressed both ways: Each can potentially be transformed by research emanating from the other. Second, another view of the role of theory in research is offered, one that builds on the inherently political dimensions of educational practices, whether in universities or elsewhere. Finally, global changes in the nature of knowledge production demand that research enhance its capacity to work for social justice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document