Via the Twittersphere
No matter how clear the exposition of the principles may be [in a lecture], no matter how fresh and striking the illustrations, it still remains that the student is relieved by the instructor from carrying on the mental processes which he ought to conduct for himself.
From the abstract:
We analyzed the Twitter followers of more than 100 faculty members in ecology and evolutionary biology and found that their followers are, on average, predominantly (∼55%) other scientists. However, beyond a threshold of ∼1000 followers, the range of follower types became more diverse and included research and educational organizations, media, members of the public with no stated association with science, and a small number of decision-makers. This varied audience was, in turn, followed by more people, resulting in an exponential increase in the social media reach of tweeting academic scientists.
From the exhibition description:
In its ubiquity as metaphor, physical space, and visual aesthetic, the laboratory has become an unquestioned dogma. At a moment when science and the production of scientific knowledge are once again undergoing an attack, architecture’s reinvigorated faith in the infallibility of science paradoxically resembles the blind devotion of a religious cult.
From the final paragraph:
Calls for more interdisciplinary work, common as they are, often lead to muddle. What’s missing from the social sciences is a willingness at a large scale to revisit the roots of the intellectual traditions that have given rise to the current system of silos in which researchers make incremental advances along familiar paths, proposing modest reforms rather than reimagining our basic institutions.
This desire for meaningful big-picture scholarship in the social sciences comports with Jo Guldi and David Armitage’s call in The History Manifesto for more relevance in the work we produce.
Schulze limits knowledge as a research object to “all canonized or useful inventories of thought” but at the same time envisions “analysis of the creation, exchange, challenge, rejection and modification of [global] knowledge inventories.” Readers might wonder what is gained or lost by understanding knowledge in terms of utility and inventories, but Schulze’s insistence that the history of knowledge lies at the center of the global history project seems noteworthy.
OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Editors (July 8, 2018). Via the Twittersphere. History of Knowledge. Retrieved December 3, 2024 from https://doi.org/10.58079/12pwc
