By RMS
In his work “The Deinstitutionalization of Activist Research" author Davydd Greenwood discusses the structural challenges social scientist face when attempting to engage in scholarship that merges academia and activism. He argues that the “Tayloristic academic division of labor” has limited the ability of scholars to conduct academic research that is oriented towards providing executable solutions to social problems (320). Although there has been a notable rise in interdisciplinary degrees, dialogue between the social sciences remains limited. It seems that even scholars who engage in interdisciplinary research must chose a primary discipline under which they situate their work. This occurrence can in part be attributed to the structures Greenwood speaks to; in which academic departments, journals and funding are divided in ways that discourages research that cannot be easily fit into a disciplinary box.
Greenwood argues that there are three types of knowledge: episteme, tekhne and phronesis. In academia the creation of episteme is propagated as the primary goal of research and valued more highly than the other forms of knowledge. He states that there is no modern English equivalent to tekhne, but describes it as the production of knowledge through active engagement with the area of study. Tekhne is produced through a process of trial and error; the application of the episteme therefore informs the continual production of tekhne. Greenwood defines phronesis as the space produced through the interaction of stakeholders in problem solving actions; phronesis goes beyond the dualism of theory and practice which exist in the social sciences today (327).
A plethora of frameworks and theories have been created to understand the processes through which public policy is created and implemented. Understanding these processes in the sphere of public policy is of course an end on itself; as the production of episteme is important to the functioning of a democratic society and government. Although public policy theories and frameworks generally refrain from promoting academic or practitioner activism, they can empower both groups with a better understanding of how to effectively intervene in these processes. As highlighted by frameworks like the multiple streams approach and path dependency, there are key moments in the policy making processes. In order to promote social justice oriented public policy, activist scholars and practitioners must understand the temporal nature of the public policy making processes so they may identify and act at the most opportune moments.
Said another way, public policies theories and frameworks can be leveraged to promote tekhne. However, the ability of scholars to use public policy scholarship to support their engagement with activist research today is limited. As discussed in my collegue David Lopez's precis, academic review and funding processes have direct impacts on what type of scholarship professors chose to produce and how they go about doing so. Unless the structure of academia is changed, the lack of time and monetary resources will continue to limit this transition. As Greenwood argues in his conclusion, the current structuring of academia is completely incompatable with the production other forms of knowledge outside of episteme (334). Therefore, it is apparent that academia must restructure its spaces to be open to the creation of tekhne and phronesis.
Similar to fellow scholar Amanda Porter, I do not have a strong desire to enter academia. However, I do hope to engage in research that will lead to social justice oriented public policy, particularly in the areas social protection and assistance. As a scholar who strives to work on a interational level, I have profound concerns about the way research is directed and undertaken. Similar to academic institutions, many organizations that hire researchers-such as the United Nations and the World Bank-have institutional structures that impede the production of tekhne and phronesis. As we have seen, public policy that is not designed with the input of the communities it will affect is more often than not misguided and ineffective.
At its best, public policy has the capacity to transform peoples lives by increasing their human capital and providing them with opportunities to live the type of life they find dignified. Today, the structure of academia and research institutions in general inhibits scholars from engaging in the activist scholarship necessary to inform public policy that is able to address the challenges that face people as individuals and as societies. Serious reforms must be made throughout these institutions to ensure that scholars are empowered to undertake meaningful and transformative research.
In his work “The Deinstitutionalization of Activist Research" author Davydd Greenwood discusses the structural challenges social scientist face when attempting to engage in scholarship that merges academia and activism. He argues that the “Tayloristic academic division of labor” has limited the ability of scholars to conduct academic research that is oriented towards providing executable solutions to social problems (320). Although there has been a notable rise in interdisciplinary degrees, dialogue between the social sciences remains limited. It seems that even scholars who engage in interdisciplinary research must chose a primary discipline under which they situate their work. This occurrence can in part be attributed to the structures Greenwood speaks to; in which academic departments, journals and funding are divided in ways that discourages research that cannot be easily fit into a disciplinary box.
Greenwood argues that there are three types of knowledge: episteme, tekhne and phronesis. In academia the creation of episteme is propagated as the primary goal of research and valued more highly than the other forms of knowledge. He states that there is no modern English equivalent to tekhne, but describes it as the production of knowledge through active engagement with the area of study. Tekhne is produced through a process of trial and error; the application of the episteme therefore informs the continual production of tekhne. Greenwood defines phronesis as the space produced through the interaction of stakeholders in problem solving actions; phronesis goes beyond the dualism of theory and practice which exist in the social sciences today (327).
A plethora of frameworks and theories have been created to understand the processes through which public policy is created and implemented. Understanding these processes in the sphere of public policy is of course an end on itself; as the production of episteme is important to the functioning of a democratic society and government. Although public policy theories and frameworks generally refrain from promoting academic or practitioner activism, they can empower both groups with a better understanding of how to effectively intervene in these processes. As highlighted by frameworks like the multiple streams approach and path dependency, there are key moments in the policy making processes. In order to promote social justice oriented public policy, activist scholars and practitioners must understand the temporal nature of the public policy making processes so they may identify and act at the most opportune moments.
Said another way, public policies theories and frameworks can be leveraged to promote tekhne. However, the ability of scholars to use public policy scholarship to support their engagement with activist research today is limited. As discussed in my collegue David Lopez's precis, academic review and funding processes have direct impacts on what type of scholarship professors chose to produce and how they go about doing so. Unless the structure of academia is changed, the lack of time and monetary resources will continue to limit this transition. As Greenwood argues in his conclusion, the current structuring of academia is completely incompatable with the production other forms of knowledge outside of episteme (334). Therefore, it is apparent that academia must restructure its spaces to be open to the creation of tekhne and phronesis.
Similar to fellow scholar Amanda Porter, I do not have a strong desire to enter academia. However, I do hope to engage in research that will lead to social justice oriented public policy, particularly in the areas social protection and assistance. As a scholar who strives to work on a interational level, I have profound concerns about the way research is directed and undertaken. Similar to academic institutions, many organizations that hire researchers-such as the United Nations and the World Bank-have institutional structures that impede the production of tekhne and phronesis. As we have seen, public policy that is not designed with the input of the communities it will affect is more often than not misguided and ineffective.
At its best, public policy has the capacity to transform peoples lives by increasing their human capital and providing them with opportunities to live the type of life they find dignified. Today, the structure of academia and research institutions in general inhibits scholars from engaging in the activist scholarship necessary to inform public policy that is able to address the challenges that face people as individuals and as societies. Serious reforms must be made throughout these institutions to ensure that scholars are empowered to undertake meaningful and transformative research.