Epistemic Encounters: Studying epistemic cultures

1. Epistemic Encounters: Studying epistemic cultures Dr. Smiljana Antonijević

2. Overview • What are epistemic cultures and trading zones? • What is the field of digital humanities and social sciences, and what changes does it initiate? • Research: how do epistemic cultures encounter each other in the field of digital humanities and social sciences? • Why is this relevant for my work?

3. Epistemic cultures • Epistemology: episteme (knowledge) + logos (study).

4. Epistemic cultures • Epistemology: episteme (knowledge) + logos (study). • Culture: the diversity of ways in which human begins establish and live their lives.

5. Epistemic cultures • Epistemology: episteme (knowledge) + logos (study). • Culture: the diversity of ways in which human begins establish and live their lives. • Epistemic cultures: the diversity of ways in which experts and expert communities establish and conduct their work .

6. Epistemic cultures • Epistemic communities: expert communities that produce and warrant knowledge. • Epistemic cultures: social and symbolic dimensions of expert communities • focus on social construction of knowledge and knowledge claims; • practices and beliefs that constitute a community’s attitude toward knowledge; • ways of constructing and justifying knowledge.

7. Epistemic cultures • Epistemic communities: expert communities that produce and warrant knowledge. • Epistemic cultures: social and symbolic dimensions of expert communities • focus on social construction of knowledge and knowledge claims; • practices and beliefs that constitute a community’s attitude toward knowledge; • ways of constructing and justifying knowledge.

8. “This science of possibilities (anthropology) develops not just from an openness to its subject matter—the axiom that everything could always be otherwise—but from the manner in which work gets done. It often gets done despite theoretical inclinations and specific analytics.” (Strathern, 2005: 453; italics in the original)

9. “The strength of anthropology is that we appreciate multi-perspectivism. Our recognition of this universe of pluralities is surely anthropology’s real competence.” (p. 101)

10. Diane Forsythe(1998) Studying Those Who Study Us: An Anthropologist in the World of Artificial Intelligence Karin Knorr-Cetina(1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge

11. Trading zones • A metaphor used to describe various aspects of scientific collaboration. • Rooted in anthropological studies of intercultural exchange of goods, taking place despite differences in language and culture. • Peter Galisonn (1997): collaboration between physicists, doctors, and engineers in developing radar, MRI. • Physicists and engineers had to gradually develop a pidgin language that involves shared concepts.

12. Digital humanities and social sciences • Use of digital technologies in the humanities and social science research and teaching. • Broad range of applications, from very simple to very complex (word processing, Google search, linguistic computing, visualization, augmented reality …). • Digital data, collections, archives, virtual research environments, digital tools, digitized and born digital materials.

13. Digital humanities and social sciences • Use of digital technologies in the humanities and social science research and teaching. • Broad range of applications, from very simple to very complex (word processing, Google search, linguistic computing, visualization, augmented reality …). • Digital data, collections, archives, virtual research environments, digital tools, digitized and born digital materials.

14. Digital humanities and social sciences • Use of digital technologies in the humanities and social science research and teaching. • Broad range of applications, from very simple to very complex (word processing, Google search, linguistic computing, visualization, augmented reality …). • Digital data, collections, archives, virtual research environments, digital tools, digitized and born digital materials.

15. Epistemic changes • Evolutionary changes Small and gradual changes, sometimes even difficult to notice; using email, word processor, Google search, electronic databases … aradigm changes Changes of the basic assumptions — paradigms — in scientific theories (Khun, 1962). Universal humanism Universal scholarly diversity, epistemic multiculturalism.

16. Epistemic changes • Evolutionary changes Small and gradual changes, sometimes even difficult to notice; using email, word processor, Google search, electronic databases … • Paradigm changes Changes of the basic assumptions — paradigms — in scientific theories (Khun, 1962). • Universal humanism Universal scholarly diversity, epistemic multiculturalism.

17. Epistemic changes • Evolutionary changes Small and gradual changes, sometimes even difficult to notice; using email, word processor, Google search, electronic databases … • Paradigm changes Changes of the basic assumptions — paradigms — in scientific theories (Khun, 1962). • Universal humanism Universal scholarly diversity, epistemic multiculturalism.

18. Epistemic changes • Evolutionary changes Small and gradual changes, sometimes even difficult to notice; using email, word processor, Google search, electronic databases … • Paradigm changes Changes of the basic assumptions — paradigms — in scientific theories (Khun, 1962). • Universal humanism Universal scholarly diversity, epistemic multiculturalism.

20. Paradigm changes • Changes of the basic assumptions — paradigms — in scientific theories (Khun, 1962). disciplinary work – epistemic encounters (literary studies, history, computer sciences, anthropology, electrical engineering, art history ...) - different premises of knowledge-seeking (objects of inquiry, research questions, methodologies) - different research practices (collaborative vs. individual) - different scholarly outputs

21. Paradigm changes • Changes of the basic assumptions — paradigms — in scientific theories (Khun, 1962). • Interdisciplinary work – epistemic encounters (literary studies, history, computer sciences, anthropology, electrical engineering, art history ...) ifferent premises of knowledge-seeking (objects of inquiry, research questions, methodologies) - different research practices (collaborative vs. individual) - different scholarly outputs

22. Paradigm changes • Changes of the basic assumptions — paradigms — in scientific theories (Khun, 1962). • Interdisciplinary work – epistemic encounters (literary studies, history, computer sciences, anthropology, electrical engineering, art history ...) • different premises of knowledge-seeking (objects of inquiry, research questions, methodologies) • different research practices (collaborative vs. individual) - different scholarly outputs

23. The dislocation and relocation of concepts are inherent to the practice of making knowledge.

24. But it would be naïve to imagine that along with the borrowing of constructs goes the borrowing of the understandings that produced them.

25. It is important to know the way such borrowings recontextualize the conceptual intent with which the constructs were once used.

26. ‘I went to sleep one day a cultural critic and woke the next metamorphosed into a data processor.’ Alan Liu, 2004

28. Research • Three projects: Alfalab, Humanities Information Practices, Digital Scholarly Workflow • 2009-2010: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; University of Oxford. • 2012-present: Penn State University • Fieldwork: site visits, observation, in-depth interviews (observing epistemic cultures in action). • Linguists, historians of religion, art historians, anthropologists, musicologists, computer scientists, experts in science and technology studies, and so on.

29. Site visits

30. Case studies

31. Interviews

32. “ In those days [10 years ago] computer scientists at your own university wouldn’t even want to talk to you. Even now when we work with them what computer science recognizes as research and what humanities and social sciences recognize as research are different things. So you have to find a common set of research goals. DrNeil Fraistat MITH

33. Karina van Dalen-Oskam

34. “ It was as if the scales dropped from our eyes, it was as we had seen the future. The world was the same and yet completely different and new, it was amazing, we were just blown away. We’ve gotten much more familiar with these kinds of technologies and possibilities, we do not have that sort of ‘ah’ experience every day. Dr Anthony Cascardi UC Berkeley

35. Mariken Teeuwen

36. “ Humanists and social scientists … are lacking a frame within which to say what they might expect, or what they might want, in a way that would help development process. The first thing that we need more of is just better and easier communications across IT people, computer scientists and humanists and social scientists. The languages are very different, hugely different. Dr Johanna Drucker UCLA

37. Maarten Hoogerwerf

38. “ I took the classes in computer science in part because my parents were concerned that I wanted to be a professional historian and wanted to make sure that I came out of college with some practical skills. I really enjoyed programming, but went the history rout. And then, when I got here, I was looking at some historical materials and I was thinking ‘wow, this would work great in a database!’ … So, I did not come to them [programmers] and said ‘build me this tool’; I said, ‘I want you to teach me how to build my tool’. Jean Bauer, PhD student University of Virginia

39. “ The humanities increasingly need good criteria for assessing the intellectual content of the project. We need for big professional groups to be able to say what is the intellectual value here, what is it contributing to the field, where is the new knowledge, what are the research methods, are they sound. Michael Hall Dr Janice Reiff UCLA

40. Joris van Zundert

41. InterfaceLabpromotes cross-disciplinaryuse of data and tools amongresearchers, bydemonstratinghowtheirdifferent methodscanbebridged.

42. Connecting epistemic cultures Developing cross-disciplinary understanding Promoting user-centered approach Implementing feedback cycles User-testing sessions

43. Discussing epistemological and methodological differences Developing common vocabulary Promoting collaborative writing Supporting shared values Team meetings

44. Listening to voices from the field Harvesting best practices Sharing experiences Supporting collaboration Fieldwork

45. Sharing experiences and practices Presenting our approach Supporting interaction within the community of practice Promoting critical reflection Dissemination

46. Use My approach Structure Content

47. Use My approach Structure Content Fostering epistemic encounters and user involvement early and often. Developing non-data driven approach (data linked to interrogation). Recognizing researchers’ sensibility to new ways of working. Understanding epistemic cultures and cultures of formalization. Accepting boundaries or limits of technology.

48. My outputs • variety of strategies to stimulate and enhance collaborative work among researchers across epistemic cultures; • development of shared research agendas, common vocabularies, understanding researchers’ needs when working in digital settings; • cultural interfaces between researchers specifically suited to digital humanities and social sciences;

49. My outputs • integrated perspectives of various disciplines and stakeholders—from medievalists, to software developers, to funders … • conceptual input for • demonstrators (TextLab, GeoLab, and LifeLab) and the portal, (http://alfalab.ehumanities.nl/ ) • two project reports • three peer-reviewed publications • fifteen peer-reviewed conference panels and presentations • participation in more than a dozen expert meetings.

50. Universal humanism • Universal scholarly diversity, epistemic multiculturalism. • Revealing layers between alternative understandings of the “human”. • “Lived experience refuses to fit any single, stable organization of the variety of human knowledges.” (Liu, 2009: 29) • Understanding the full diversity of humanity requires full methodological/disciplinary diversity.