Buongiorno, forse per catturare l'attenzione, nel titolo e nell'articolo parla molto di covid-19 MA è una scusa, il covid-19 non c'entra proprio un bel niente. Pone un serio problema di epistemologia, nel quale "il digitale" e Internet giocano da qualche lustro un ruolo *fondamentale*: è anche per questo che propongo qui questo pezzo. Oserei definire questo articolo come "un brogliaccio" di un opera in tre volumi dal titolo «Il Capitale Scientifico» :-D Cracks in the Knowledge System: Whose Knowledge is Valued in a Pandemic and Beyond? By Jon Harle - 10 September 2020 https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/10/09/2020/cracks-knowledge-system-... --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- [...] the processes of exclusion that are baked into the ways in which we produce, communicate and use knowledge. [...] Taking a longer term and systemic view would mean thinking not just about research (i.e. how knowledge is produced by researchers) but also systems of education, and particularly higher education, that create our professional and practitioner communities, and systems of decision-making, that determine how evidence is used in government and elsewhere. Here are some of the things we need to think about. 1. Whose knowledge counts and what types of evidence are valued? [...] But it is not only a question of disciplinary weight. The source of funding, and the origins of researchers, influence the methodologies used and what comes to count as knowledge. [...] [...] the question of whose knowledge also has a darker side – one that connects instantly to the racism that infects much of our discourse on knowledge. [...] 2. What do decision makers need and what systems have they got to make use of it? AKA – supply vs usefulness [...] Experts who are better connected to policy spaces or to the media are likely to be privileged in the debate. [...] [...] If organisations lack the structures for commissioning or evaluating evidence, then decision makers will be forced to rely on what they get, when they get it, rather than being able to generate what they need when they need it. It probably looks very different to someone working in local government too. They might be unable to access disaggregated data on which to base their own decisions, or lack the resources and capacities to generate their own. [...] 3. Who can access digital knowledge and tools? Who can work and who can study? [...] But going digital also creates new exclusions. It’s much harder to participate when your connectivity is poor or comes at greater personal expense. [...] [...] When we rely so much on digital networks we also need to think about the knowledge that is rendered inaccessible by the languages in which we’ve digitised it, or even invisible by its complete lack of digitisation. [...] 4. Questioning norms and what counts as excellent research [...] In the process of adapting research processes, some researchers have reflected on the extent to which Northern researchers and “capacity builders” are needed – or not. But further disruption is needed too. Any “better” future will only happen by unsettling the prevailing structures for creating, contesting and deploying knowledge. More Southern researchers doing the work isn’t enough if that work is still constrained (explicitly or implicitly) by the norms and metrics which decide what “excellence” and “quality” look like. Those tend to be set in the North and are then pushed into Southern systems, directly or indirectly as a result of funding. [...] Most critically, we need to recognise that inequity within knowledge systems is not an accident. It is fundamentally about power, and it therefore follows that to address these inequities we must be prepared to disturb those asymmetries – and to be ready to change our own role. See more, in the full paper "(In)equitable knowledge systems: before, during and beyond a pandemic." [1] --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- SE quanto sostenuto "fa senso", allora direi che si sposa MOLTO bene con quanto sostenuto nell'articolo segnalato da Giacomo il 10 Settembre scorso del Guardian: «How philanthropy benefits the super-rich» https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/08/how-philanthropy-benefits-th... Domanda: la filantropia crea diseguaglianze nel modo in cui si produce, comunica e utilizza la conoscenza? Domanda: non è che la scienza è usata sempre di più come sistema di potere per dare valore di evidenza oggettiva a interessi particolari soggettivi? Mi sbilancio e faccio un esempio: le teorie economiche della scuola Austriaca? Se sì, la comunità scientifica riconosce che questo è un problema? É in grado di affrontarlo? Benvenuti nel secolo della crisi della scienza! :-D Saluti, Giovanni. [1] https://www.inasp.info/sites/default/files/2020-08/EKES-COVID.pdf -- Giovanni Biscuolo