The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies

Gibbons, Michael; Limoges, Camille; Nowotny, Helga; Schwartzman, Simón; Scott, Peter; Trow, Martín

doi:10.4135/9781446221853

Cited by 602 publications

(765 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

453

Contrasting

Unclassified

132

Order By: Relevance

“…A typical organisational framework for knowledge co-production is a "Hybrid Forum". Gibbons et al (1994) describe hybrid fora as meeting points for a diverse range of actors and as a new market for knowledge exchange and expertise. Scientists may interact with practitioners and other actors who are not included in the traditional scientific research process.…”

Section: Introduction: the Mode Of Knowledge Co-production In Modern mentioning

confidence: 99%

How much evidence is in evidence-based policymaking: a case study of an expert group of the European Commission

Décieux

2020

Evidence &Amp; Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge co-production is a solution-oriented approach to analysing real-life problems such as making the right decision in a given scenario. The most popular examples come from evidence-based policymaking contexts. Political decisions made in this way rely on specialist expertise co-produced in organisations that can be characterised as Hybrid Fora. However, despite the rise in popularity of Hybrid Fora and evidence-based policymaking processes, there are only a few studies that analyse the influencing factors of knowledge co-production in these contexts. The case study presented here addresses this new area of research through a documentary analysis and 11 expert interviews, both analysed via qualitative content analysis. First, the study reconstructs how knowledge is produced within an Expert Group of the European Commission. Second, it reflects how the produced knowledge is de facto included as “evidence” into the decision-making processes of the relevant policy area. The results of this study show that in this expert group, pragmatic and extra-scientific criteria such as specific stakes and interests as well as the group hierarchy controlled the process of knowledge co-production. Moreover, it also seems that knowledge produced by the interaction of experts within the examined Expert Group has a more symbolic, policy-orientated function, rather than being specifically used as decision-making evidence.

show abstract

Section: Introduction: the Mode Of Knowledge Co-production In Modern mentioning

confidence: 99%

How much evidence is in evidence-based policymaking: a case study of an expert group of the European Commission

Décieux

2020

Evidence &Amp; Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This question has not attracted much interest among the academic community, nor is it one of the usual or recurring themes of human rights epistemology (Gerwith, 1984;Claude, 2002). Debate on this area has mainly focused on its interdisciplinary nature (Hafner-Burton, 2013; Klein, 1990;2010ª;Gibbons et al, 2010), but it has barely delved into the rationales and modes of knowledge production that characterise human rights research (Barry et al, 2008). Consequently, academia has not reflected on the potential conceptual, epistemological and methodological biases involved in this type of research.…”

Section: How Do We Come To Understand What We Need To Know About Hmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge Production Methods in Human Rights Research: Constraints and Opportunities for the Promotion of an Interdisciplinary Approach

Ayuso

2019

TAHRJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article asks about the current modes of production in human rights research and how they are (or may be) determined by the structures where that knowledge is generated. These questions will be answered by looking at the results of a preliminary study on the reception and subsequent institutionalisation of studies on human rights in stable structures that are dedicated to their research, training and dissemination in Spanish universities. The starting hypothesis is that this institutionalisation causes conceptual, epistemological and methodological biases in the rationales for knowledge construction in the field of human rights that determine and hinder the interdisciplinary approach demanded by its study. Interdisciplinarity has become a dominant aspect of human rights research. The question about how this feature is articulated and who articulates it in the academic institutional framework is pertinent in a field of knowledge that cannot avoid asymmetries in the production and circulation of knowledge. The results show that human rights research has been mainly institutionalised in stable university structures in Spain within the field of legal sciences, with a clear predominance of the area of the Philosophy of Law. It can be concluded that this has been conditioned by the reception and subsequent development of the study of human rights in Spain. While it has been found that the line developed by these centres and research groups has been consolidated and recognised, it can also be confirmed that their modes of knowledge production do not match the rationale of interdisciplinary research. These limitations are not just endogenous. There are some features of Spanish institutional R&D&i culture that make interdisciplinary research on human rights difficult.

show abstract

“…Подібна проблематика в свою чергу передбачає більш широкий контекстний зміст, в якому простежуються не тільки комерційні інтереси і вигоди, оскільки він включає безліч інтелектуальних і соціальних вимог, які розширюють фундаментальність підстав, в порівнянні з прикладними дослідженнями медичної дисциплінарної науки [14]. Затребуваність практично орієнтованого знання маркує ще одну важливу обставину -обмеження монополії науки на виробництво знання, а також і на детермінацію процесів його застосування і використання [9].…”

Section: результати дослідження та їх обговоренняunclassified

Implementation of Educational Objectives in Teaching Pathomorphology in Higher Educational Institutions of Ukraine

Rosha¹

2018

Act. Probl. of the Modern Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Higher medical education should provide high-quality training for students and become an important component of reforming the health care. The purpose of the higher education reforms is to establish the unified criteria, methodology and control systems, as well as to promote mutual recognition of higher education diplomas and students’ mobility. The practice of teaching pathomorphology and biopsy sectional course at the department of pathological anatomy proves that there is poorly developed integration between disciplines due to the lack of clear prevailing curricula. The merging of the material and technical resources and staff resources of the universities and the pathoanatomical service will increase the level of teaching work and will ensure objectivity in assessing the students’ practical skills. The close interaction between the department of pathological anatomy and medical institutions can contribute to eliminate the gap between theory and practice, to carry out training of highly skilled personnel through primary specialization, internship, residency and postgraduate study.

show abstract

The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies

Cited by 602 publications

References 0 publications

How much evidence is in evidence-based policymaking: a case study of an expert group of the European Commission

How much evidence is in evidence-based policymaking: a case study of an expert group of the European Commission

Knowledge Production Methods in Human Rights Research: Constraints and Opportunities for the Promotion of an Interdisciplinary Approach

Implementation of Educational Objectives in Teaching Pathomorphology in Higher Educational Institutions of Ukraine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About