“Amalgams of arrangements and mechanisms–bonded through affinity, necessity, and historical coincidence - which, in a given field, make up how we know what we know. Epistemic cultures are cultures that create and warrant knowledge, and the premier knowledge institution throughout the world is, still, science” (Knorr-Cetina 1999, 1).
“… construction of the machineries deployed in fact construction. The machineries of fact construction include skilful scientists [...] ontologies of organisms and machines that result from the reconfiguration of self-other-things implemented in different fields, the use of ‘liminal’ and referent epistemologies in dealing with natural objects and their resistances, strategies of putting sociality to work through ... of the individual epistemic subject and the creation of social ‘superorganisms’ in its place, or the use of equipment as ‘transitional’ objects” (Knorr-Cetina 1995, 158).
Detaching from the traditional focus of the sociology of knowledge production, her emphasis is “on the construction of the machineries of knowledge construction” by an investigation into the “technical, social and symbolic dimensions of intricate expert systems” (Knorr-Cetina 1999, 3). Although his notion of expert system is useful in drawing attention to the whole context of expert work, Giddens (1990) focuses on the knowledge production output, whereas Knorr-Cetina looks into furthering the culture of expert systems (Evers 2005). As used by Knorr-Cetina, knowledge is defined to be close to knowing and culture, in a narrower sense, as practices, but as kinds of creative and constructive practices rather than customary or routine task performance (Knorr-Cetina 2001, 184-185).
18
“The culture-as-practice approach, as I see it, takes culture out of the realm of the ideal, the spiritual and the non-material with which culture appears to be identified in many contemporary approaches. I am not suggesting that practices should somehow be understood as outside meaning contexts. To discover practices, it is ‘necessary to gain a working familiarity with the frames of meaning’ within which people enact their lives, and symbolic doings such as rituals or ‘writing’ are as much practices as any others. But one does not pay attention to the content of meaning structures, say the content of a text or a symbol, only, but also to their embodied use – and to the way meaning is nested in and arises from this use” (Knorr-Cetina 2007, 364).
Intensively engaging in two different sciences, Knorr-Cetina (1999) justifies the disunity14 within the sciences and contends that different epistemic cultures exist in different scientific fields. She demonstrates that HEP is characterised by a scientist’s self-reflection and self-analysis, complex sign systems, and negative epistemic approaches, whereas molecular biologists engage in intensive interaction of natural objects, experimental regimes, and searches for new evidence by applying variations of their procedures in response to a problem. At the organisational level, HEP laboratories maintain a “post-traditional communitarian structure” with a collectively focused collaboration because of work size, while MB experiments are organised with a focus on single scientist/scientist group formats with a more well-defined “logic of exchange” and competitive tensions (cf. Cutcliffe 2001).
For Knorr-Cetina (1991), epistemics, the grounding of knowledge, is portrayed as “a richly textured internal environment and culture.” Different epistemic cultures form different epistemic landscapes -
“a whole landscape–or market–of independent epistemic monopolies producing vastly different products” (Knorr-Cetina 1999, 4).
Evers (2000; 2005) pioneered the practice of putting epistemic culture argumentations into broader development discussions. He offered widening dimensional and meaning perspectives on epistemic cultures in linking with global development discourse and practice:
“Epistemic cultures are not only found in the laboratories of natural science research, but are institutionalised in various ways in the New Economy of globalised knowledge societies. I doubt whether science can still be called the premier knowledge institution; science is increasingly intermingled if not determined by the organisations that govern the knowledge-based world market” (Evers 2005, 11).
Such a new society is characterised by knowledge work, which goes beyond the knowledge-based work by educated professionals and skilled workers in an industrial society (Evers 2000). In other words, “a knowledge society is not simply a society of more experts, more technological gadgets, more specialist interpretations. It is a society permeated with knowledge cultures…” (Knorr-Cetina 1999, 7).
Epistemic cultures as cultures of creating and warranting knowledge or cultures of knowledge setting can be seen as a structural feature of knowledge societies15 (Knorr-Cetina 2007).
14 Markovsky (2000, 557) expresses his disagreement with this contention. He argues that fabric of science is knitted by underlying logic of used methods rather than by concrete activities of individual and collective scientists. Knorr Cetina’s recognition and magnification of homogeneous knowledge domains and fragmentation of contemporary science is, however, emphasised through an investigation into the cultural structure of scientific methodology (Knorr-Cetina 1991).
15 A knowledge society is believed to have the following characteristics: “(1) Its members have attained a higher average standard of education in comparison to other societies and a growing proportion of its labour force are employed as knowledge workers. (2) Its industry produces products with integrated artificial intelligence. (3) Its
19
In such a distinct epistemic culture of development, as argued by Evers (2000; 2005), the idealised epistemic agent is no longer viable with “isolated scholars surrounded by books and papers in ivory towers.” He claims that knowledge production has become polycentric in the emergence of the science-industry-governance triple helix instead of being a monopoly of basic knowledge production by universities. As such, the culture of markets and the culture of organisations are turned into epistemic cultures particularly when organisations are transformed into learning, innovative, or even intelligent organisations. For him, such transformations take place at the organisational levels and also beyond the boundaries of organisations. The conceptualisation of dynamics and flexibility of epistemic communities beyond academia and their knowledge production cultures allows insight into the understanding of formal and informal, local and global forms of formation, operation, and practices of such knowledge work communities, making them key components and active forces of knowledge production in globalised knowledge societies.
“The researcher himself is transformed into an instrument of observation, but he also turns practices of everyday life into epistemic devices for the production of knowledge. Thus conversation becomes discourse, drinking tea in a staff canteen a method for the creation of an epistemic community. Collective practices, networks of social interaction and communication constitute epistemic communities beyond the boundaries of large-scale organisations” (Evers 2005, 12).
To this extent, epistemic communities get closer to the notion of communities of practice (CoP) on the assumption that knowledge and knowing is embedded in practices and cultures shared by CoPs despite an emphasis on networks of practitioners16. Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002, 4) define communities of practice as “groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis.” Three distinctive features of communities of practice include the mutual engagement of participants, a joint enterprise as a process of negotiation, and a shared repertoire combining both reificative and participative aspects (Wenger 1998, 72-85). Communities and networks of practice are self-organising, open activity systems, which develop on their own depending on the voluntary
organisations - private, government and civil society - are transformed into intelligent organisations. (4) There is increased organised knowledge in the form of digitalised expertise, stored in data banks, expert systems, organisational plans and other media. (5) There are multiple centers of expertise and a polycentric production of knowledge. (6) There is a distinct epistemic culture of knowledge production and knowledge utilisation” (Evers 2000; 2005).
16 Collaboratively informal, independent, off-the-grid networks, a community of practice consists practitioners who develop shared understandings, engage in work-relevant knowledge building and create norms of direct reciprocity (Hara 2009, 118 cited in Correia, Paulos, and Mesquita 2010, 12; McDermott and Archibald 2010). It is a tightly knit group of members who know each other and typically negotiate, communicate and coordinate with each other directly (Wasko and Faraj 2005, 37). Conversely, networks of practice connote larger and more geographically distributed groups of individuals engaged in a shared practice with weaker relationships than those among the members of a community as participants who may not know each other nor necessarily expect to meet face to face (Tagliaventi and Mattarelli 2006, 294; Wasko and Faraj 2005, 37). Despite their indirect contacts and unfamiliarity, participants in networks of practice can share and exchange a great deal of knowledge, as “networks often coordinate through third parties such as professional associations, or exchange knowledge through conferences and publications such as specialized newsletters” (Brown and Duguid 2000 cited in Wasko and Faraj 2005, 37). Communities and networks of practice are self-organising, open activity systems, which develop on their own depending on the voluntary engagement of their members and internal leadership, and flourish whether or not the organisation/sector recognises them (cf. Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder 2002, 12f).
20
engagement of their members and internal leadership, and flourish whether or not the organisation/sector recognises them (cf. Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder 2002, 12f). As shared practices also draw boundaries, the creation of inter-CoP knowledge communication and/or CoP constellations built on interconnected practices becomes more challenging from an epistemic landscape perspective (cf. Gherardi and Nicolini 2002). A number of boundary traverse means and approaches have been proposed, including “boundary objects,” “translators,” “knowledge brokers,” or
“boundary interactions and cross-disciplinary projects” (Mứrk et al. 2008).
Additionally, as Evers’ (2000, 2005) arguments were developed, the transformative epistemic culture of development is extended as a culture of knowledge production and utilisation. A productive epistemic culture can no longer be locked with a dichotomy or discontinuance of knowledge production and use, or knowledge creation and absorption. An intelligent organisation can only form if the stored knowledge is put to use and used as a regime of governance (Willke 1998 cited in Evers 2005). For achieving development aims, knowledge is linked with economic and social returns apart from epistemological goal definitions.
Evers (2000; 2005) provides a transformative conceptualisation of epistemic cultures from a more static as-an-end view that epistemic cultures are a structural feature of knowledge societies, indicating a dynamic processes-based perspective in which “epistemic cultures of vast knowledge-producing and processing organisations increasingly structure society.” In such new dimensions of epistemic cultures, as Evers suggests, this new sociology of knowledge17 asks further research questions and conducts empirical investigations.
The discussed argumentation on epistemic cultures (of development) provides three main ideas of thought as theoretical departure points for the current research, despite its special focus on agricultural and rural development, to take to the fore and forward. First, it highlights the emerging epistemic landscape of polycentric knowledge production actors interdependent through both cooperation and competition interactions. Second, it is highlighted that individuals in communities become the epistemic agent. Knowledge production cannot fully be understood when isolated from the shared epistemic practices and cultures it is embedded in. Our theoretical framework will be built on these two premises in an integrated system to include multiple actors and their interactions (see Section 1.3).
17 The aim of the sociology of knowledge “is to locate whatever body of belief a group accepts as a true account of reality and then try to illuminate it by reference to social variables” (Bloor 2010, 744). Viewing (scientific) knowledge as social institutions, knowledge sociologists aims to “identify such features as (1) the general character of the processes by which new cultural members are ‘socialized’, that is, trained and educated; (2) the specific institutions and authorities charged with this task in particular cases; (3) the mechanisms by which a body of culture is kept relatively stable and hence available for use; (4) the precise circumstances and purposes associated with its employment on particular occasions; (5) the processes by which change is managed and its locus and extent negotiated; (6) the distribution of taken-for-granted beliefs according to status and membership criteria, for example, professional or amateur, male or female, doctor and patient, scientist or technician” (Bloor 2010).
21
Third, knowledge in epistemic cultures should not be limited to first-hand, single-stand knowledge production within science laboratories or research centers. Knowledge production for development is indeed greatly dependent on how much such knowledge is diffused and applied in development practice, in both meticulously designed projects and less consciously recorded everyday life activities. It is important to make a distinction between the two types of knowledge: they are “knowledge of” what is (Ko) and “knowledge for” acting (Kf) (Glanville 2005; 2006). The sort of knowledge collected and valued in research, philosophical, and academic work is knowledge of what is. Development work and design require constant research usefulness and applicability or knowledge for. If the crucial role of scientific communities is the understanding of the growth of knowledge, the growth of scientific knowledge is in turn largely due to a diffusion process in which new ideas are transmitted from scientists to scientists, from scientists to end-users, and among knowledge users (cf. Chen and Hicks 2004). From a broader developmentalist perspective, the shifting of development paradigms from modernisation, dependency, and neo-liberalism to alternative development is rooted in the thinking system transformation and practice advancement of epistemologies that acknowledge multiple and complex paths of development human societies, with their interdependence, might take or experience beyond pure economic growth, free market, structural adjustment and take off while more emphasis is placed on local knowledge, capacity, and participation in promoting people-centered and sustainable development. Even post-development or alternative to development is thus not necessarily anti- development but correctly expands “development” dimensions in its complex relations with knowledge, practices, culture, and social movements beyond the unconditionally-accepted Western framework.
The epistemic culture concept originally theorised by Knorr-Cetina describes “truth-finding”
machineries of natural science laboratories in post-industrial societies, which are increasingly governed by knowledge and expertise, with a strong focus on the cultural structure of scientific methodology centerd on expert-epistemic object relations (Knorr-Cetina 1991; 2001). Advancing the argument that the scientific method is a heavily context- and culture-textured phenomenon within social relations and the observation that inside the epistemic space is the "untidy" goings-on of various businesses of experimentation (Knorr-Cetina 1991, 107), my proposed research direction here posits that knowledge creation practices are investigated in the continuous spiral cycles of knowledge diffusion, adoption, and regeneration, allowing an expanded application of epistemic culture understanding into diverse contexts apart from the post-traditional society. Knowledge diffusion, which stresses multiple actor interaction and a different knowledge world interface, offers another study path to investigate the epistemic culture of development through knowledge-based work in knowledge producer-user interaction, including human and non-human actors, throughout knowledge production processes in
“developing” societies.
22