Contemporary changes in the domain of knowledge production are usually seen as posing significant challenges to 'the University'. This paper argues against the framing of the university as an ideal-type, and considers epistemic gains from treating universities as assemblages (e.g. DeLanda, M. 2016. Assemblage Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press) of different functions, actors and relations. It contrasts this with the concept of 'unbundling', using two recent cases of controversies around academics' engagement on social media to show how, rather than having clearly delineated limits, social entities become 'territorialised' through boundary disputes. The conclusion extends this discussion to the production of knowledge about social objects in general.
This article introduces the concept of epistemic positioning to theorize the relationship between identity-based epistemic judgements and the reproduction of social inequalities, including those of gender and ethnicity/race, in the academia. Acts of epistemic positioning entail the evaluation of knowledge claims based on the speaker’s stated or inferred identity. These judgements serve to limit the scope of the knowledge claim, making it more likely speakers will be denied recognition or credit. The four types of epistemic positioning – bounding (reducing a knowledge claim to elements of personal identity), domaining (reducing a knowledge claim to discipline or field associated with identity), non-attribution (using the claim without recognizing the author) and appropriation (presenting the claim as one’s own) – are mutually reinforcing. Given the growing importance of visibility and recognition in the context of increasing competition and insecurity in academic employment, these practices play a role in the ability of underrepresented groups to remain in the academic profession.
Digital technologies have made access to and profit from scientific publications hotly contested issues. Debates over Open Access (OA), however, rarely extend from questions of distribution into questions of how OA is transforming the politics of academic knowledge production. We argue that the movement towards OA rests on a relatively stable moral episteme that positions different actors involved in the economy of OA (authors, publishers, the general public), and most importantly, knowledge itself. Our analysis disentangles the ontological and moral side of these claims, showing how OA changes the meaning of knowledge from a good in the economic, to good in the moral sense. This means OA can be theorised as the moral economy of digital knowledge production. Ultimately, using Boltanski and Thévenot's work on justification, we reflect on how this moral economy frames political subjectivity of actors and institutions involved in academic knowledge production.
This article analyses the ways in which a policy actor constructs its agency through the production of knowledge. Taking the example of the concept of 'autonomy' as constructed in the discourse of the European University Association (EUA), the article draws on the theory of discursive framing and agenda setting, as well as on Meyer and Jepperson's heuristic of agentic actors, to show how the practice of knowledge production can shape the European higher education policy. The article offers a contribution to the debate aiming to develop a more critical perspective on the development of the European Higher Education Area, which sees the process as constituted through the activities of, and the negotiations between, different political actors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.