The course gives an introduction to theories of science and relevant social science and humanities scholarship, with an emphasis on the history and philosophy of science and the social organization and dynamics of various academic fields, including their strategies for producing knowledge and the interaction between research and society. This includes an introduction to critical perspectives, such as post-/decolonial and feminist perspectives on science.
The overall aim of the course is to help the participants to *successfully* conduct their PhD project. What "success" means is defined by institutional, societal, and political contexts within which scientific knowledge is produced. The course engages with issues such as philosophical assumptions underlying high-quality scholarship, making claims about truth and objectivity, professional and societal relevance of science, and navigation of academic challenges. To contribute to a better understanding of contemporary academic work, insights into the history of science and academic scholarship and the key features of the modern university are conveyed. Moreover, the course provides one of the few arenas in which PhD students from a wide variety of disciplines meet and work together, which increases their interdisciplinary sensitivities.
The course consists of lectures, group work, and plenary discussions. To ensure sufficient engagement with the course’s content, to enable peer-learning and to encourage networking across disciplines physical attendance is mandatory and no digital alternatives for participation are provided. Participants can apply for shorter leaves of absence that should altogether not be longer than one day.
Professor Thomas Berker (responsible for the course: thomas.berker@ntnu.no), Associate Professor Terje Finstad, Professor Jonathan Knowles, Associate Professor Sofia Moratti, Researcher Mattias Solli, Associate Professor Elisabeth Stubberud, Professor emeritus Knut H. Sørensen, Professor May Thorseth, and Research Professor Govert Valkenburg.
This website is the main and authoritative channel of communication to the participants. For individual questions, please contact thomas.berker@ntnu.no.
All files including the readings are published as releases (see the releases-button on top or use this [link](http://learn.kultwiki.net/thomas/TOS-H23/releases)), where the newest release is on top. Those of you who consider themselves computer-literate can clone this repository and/or follow changes through the rss feed - or even get an account from me to be able to push changes.
To pass the course, you need to attend the lectures, present a paper at the course conference, and/or deliver a course assignment text (see below). The deadline for the course assignment is January 31st, 2024.
KULT8850 gives 7.5 credit points, which presupposes a presentation at the course conference and the handing in of an extended abstract (1000-2000 words).
Readings are listed under each of the lectures. All the literature is accessible online or will be made available to the participants in a drop box folder to which they will be given access. Reading and preparing for lectures: All the essential literature must be read before the lectures. Please make sure to prepare some comments/questions for the readings.
The following lectures on day 1 and 2 will take up philosophical questions about method and truth in relation to natural science, social science, and the humanities, rounding off with a discussion of general research ethics.
This session introduces the classical issues of the philosophy of science, framed through the lens of the nature and possibility of objectivity in research.
- Gaukroger, Stephen. 2012. Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapter 1.
- Jonathan Knowles, Theory of science: A Short Introduction: ‘Logical Positivism’ (p. 21-30).
- Popper, Karl. 1972. The Bucket and the Searchlight: Two Theories of Knowledge. Appendix to Objective Knowledge. An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Kuhn, Thomas S. 2012. Postscript - 1969. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 173-208. Fourth edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- H.G. Gadamer 'The universality of the hermeneutical problem' in his Philosophical Hermeneutics, ed. D. Linge, California UP 1976.
- S Harding '"Strong objectivity" and socially situated knowledge' Chapter 6 of her Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Cornell UP 1991.
*Additional readings:*
- Jonathan Knowles, Theory of science: A Short Introduction: Ch. 4: Further Developments in Philosophy of Science: Lakatos, Feyerabend, Laudan, The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.
- M. Foucault 'The Discourse on Language' Appendix to The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York, Pantheon Books 1972, http://commons.princeton.edu/shakespeares-language/wp-content/uploads/sites/41/2017/09/Foucault-The-Discourse-on-Language.pdf
0915-1200: Mattias Solli: The Role of the Body and Literacy in Research
This session deals with two enabling factors within science and their impact on our understanding of science: The body and literacy.
- What role does the body play in the production of scientific knowledge?
- How does the customary association between literacy and academic knowledge influence how we theorize about science?
- What if things were different – what can we learn from knowledge systems that incorporate the knowing body in more articulate ways than we usually do in the Western academic tradition, without any involvement of literacy?
*Essential readings:*
- Molander, B. (2015). Chapter 2: Tacit Knowledge and Silenced Knowledge. The Body, Culture, Action—and Language. In The practice of knowing and knowing in practices (pp. 35-70). Peter Lang Edition.
- Ong, W. (2013). Chapter 1: Transformation of the Word and Alienation. In Interfaces of the Word: Studies in the Evolution of Consciousness and Culture (pp 17-49). Cornell University Press.
*Additional reading:*
- Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). The primacy of perception and its philosophical consequences. In The primacy of perception (pp. 12-27). Northwestern University Press.
1200-1300: Lunch
1300-1545: May Thorseth: Research ethics
This session deals with three levels of research ethics:
- Kaiser, M (2014) The integrity of science. Lost in translation? Best practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology. 28(2):339-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2014.03.003.
- Ruyter, K.W. (2019) The history of research ethics. Available at : https://www.forskningsetikk.no/en/resources/the-research-ethics-library/systhematic-and-historical-perspectives/the-history-of-research-ethics/.
- Guillemin, M & Guillam, L (2004) Ethics, reflexivity and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry. 10(2):261-280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403262360.
- Sarewitz, D (2016) The pressure to publish pushes down quality. Nature. 533:147https://www.nature.com/articles/533147a.
Browse through the NESH guidelines, available in both Norwegian: https://www.forskningsetikk.no/retningslinjer/hum-sam/forskningsetiske-retningslinjer-for-samfunnsvitenskap-og-humaniora/ or English: https://www.forskningsetikk.no/en/guidelines/social-sciences-humanities-law-and-theology/guidelines-for-research-ethics-in-the-social-sciences-humanities-law-and-theology/
- Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison. 1992. The image of objectivity. In: Representations 40, p. 81-128
- Steven Shapin. 2010. Never pure. Historical studies of science as if it was produced by people with bodies, situated in time, space, culture, and society, and struggling for credibility and authority. The Johns Hopkins University Press, p. 1-15.
- H.M. Collins and Steven Yearly (1992). Epistemological Chicken, pp. 301-326 in Andrew Pickering (ed.): Science as Practice and Culture, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
- Michel Callon and Bruno Latour (1992). Don’t throw the baby out with the Bath School! A reply to Collins and Yearley, pp. 343-368 in Andrew Pickering (ed.): Science as Practice and Culture, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
- Noortje Marres (2018). Why We Can't Have Our Facts Back. Engaging Science, Technology and Society, vol. 4, 2018.
- Valkenburg, G. (2021). Engineering as a socio-political practice. In D. P. Michelfelder & N. Doorn (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Engineering. Routledge. [While strictly about engineering and not scientific research, much of this chapter resonates and pertains to science.]
- Suchman, L. (2014). Reconfiguring practices. In C. Coopmans, J. Vertesi, M. E. Lynch, & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice revisited (pp. 333-335). MIT Press.
0915 Knut H. Sørensen: The university as a place and a context for research: Academic freedom and autonomy, the quest for excellence, and strained collegiality.
- Knut H. Sørensen and Sharon Traweek: Questing Excellence in Academia: A Tale of Two Universities (Routledge 2022). Chapter 3. In the Shadows of Excellence and Neoliberal Interventions: Enactments of Academic Autonomy and Strained Collegiality (33 p.) The whole book is available here: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780367259334
In this session we will work on the concept of objectivity based in feminist critique of universality in science and discuss the relevance and importance of acknowledging researcher positionalities.
- Collins, Patricia Hill 1986. Learning from the outsider within: the sociological significance of black feminist thought i Social Problems 33(6): 14-32 https://www.jstor.org/stable/800672
- Haraway, Donna 1988. ”Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective” Feminist Studies, 14(3): 575-599 (24 s) https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3178066.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A764992d6e6cdb51420%208857639557edb6
- Harding, Sandra, 2001 “Feminist Standpoint Epistemology” in Lederman, M. & Bartsch, i The Gender and Science Reader, London: Routledge: 145-165 (pdf)
- Alcoff, Linda. “The Problem of Speaking for Others.” Cultural Critique, no. 20 (1991): 5–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/1354221.
- Longino, Helen E. 1993. Feminist Standpoint Theory and the Problems of Knowledge (Review essay discussing Smith, D., Stanley, L., Hekman, S. and Harding, S.), Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 1993, vol. 19, no. 1: 201-2012 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3174750
- Fjellheim, Eva Maria (2020) 'Through our stories we resist', https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/oa-edit/10.4324/9780367853785-12/stories-resist-eva-maria-fjellheim
- Kuokkanen, Rauna (2008) ‘What is hospitality in the Academy? Epistemic Ignorance and the (Im)Possible Gift’ in Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies vol. 30(1), pp. 60-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714410701821297
- SAIH: An introduction to decolonization https://saih.no/assets/docs/Avkolonisering/Avkolonisering-ENG.pdf
- Bhambra, Gurminder K. (2014) ‘Postcolonial and decolonial dialogues’ in Postcolonial Studies Vol. 17(2), pp. 115-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2014.966414
- Wynne, Brian. 2006. Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science – Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music? Public Health Genomics 9 (3): 211–20.
- Pfotenhauer, Sebastian M., Joakim Juhl, and Erik Aarden. “Challenging the ‘Deficit Model’ of Innovation: Framing Policy Issues under the Innovation Imperative.” Research Policy, New Frontiers in Science, Technology and Innovation Research from SPRU’s 50th Anniversary Conference, 48, no. 4 (May 1, 2019): 895–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.015.
- Berker, Thomas. “Negotiating research norms between academic and industrial research. The case of a research centre on zero emission buildings in Norway”, to be published in Nordic Architectural Research.
- Collins, Harry, Robert Evans, and Mike Gorman. “Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Case studies of expertise and experience, 38, no. 4 (December 2007): 657–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2007.09.003.
- Collins, H.M. and Robert Evans. 2002. The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience. Social Studies of Science 32 (2): 235–96.
- Latour, B. (2018) Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime. Polity Press.
The participants of the course present papers on how their PhD work relates to the topics of the course. The conference is public and will be organised collectively.
