4 Matching Annotations
- Jul 2019
Thisstudy makes noclaims of neutral, generalizable knowledge –what Haraway (1988) called “the view from above, from nowhere” (p. 589) –but rather focuseson the ways in which open scholarly influenceis experienced and understood by specifically-located individuals. These “situated knowledges” (Haraway, 1988) areperspectives shaped by particular social locations, material realities, and power relations.
perspectives shaped by particular social location, material realities, and power relations
Rather than claiming that “view from above, from nowhere” (Haraway, 1988, p. 589), mysociomaterial approach takes upeach of the intersecting lenses that comprise this dissertation as webs of significance, interpreted and analyzed through “the view from a body...a complex, contradictory, structuring, and structured body” (Haraway, 1988, p. 589). In the conclusion,I turn my focus to the view from this structuring and structured body a year after wrapping up the research study, and share some of the webs of significance that have emerged within the networks it helped create
webs of significance
This idea of an embedded, non-isomorphic and multiply-located researcher compromises the premise of what Haraway (1988) would call an unmarked field of vision, or the detached, reductionist “conquering gaze from nowhere” (p. 581) that science has traditionally valourized as signifying objectivity. From a perspective of situated knowledges, however, that neutral research lens is an inherently impossible fiction that reinforces status quo power relations.
inherently impossible fiction
This emphasis on knowledge as situated and enacted is informed by Haraway’s (1988) concept of situated knowledges and its premise of the material-semiotic actor, who –whether human or non-human –actively contributes to the production of knowledge as an “active, meaning-generating” (Haraway, 1988, p. 595) part of the apparatus, or assemblage. All three papers in this dissertation have ontological roots in the concept of situated knowledges, and in the assumption that both human and non-human actors contribute to any understanding of scholarship as a techno-cultural system