building knowledge about knowledge exploring epistemic relations and values karl maton department of...

Building knowledge about knowledgeExploring epistemic relations and values

Karl MatonDepartment of Sociology

University of Sydney

Themes and focus

• characteristics of powerful and cumulative knowledge

• how we can build powerful and cumulative knowledge about knowledge

• focus on characteristics highlighted by Bernstein’s concept of ‘grammar’

www.legitimationcodetheory.com 2

Aims

• propose improved concepts that build on Bernstein’s notion of ‘grammar’

• using concepts to explore how we can best build powerful knowledge – paper itself offers development

– new concepts will be used to analyse different response to such development

– to reveal possible futures for the field


Plan

1. value and limitations of ‘grammar’

2. re-conceptualizing ‘grammar’ using LCT– epistemic relations and insights

3. case studies of intellectual fields: economics and physics

4. implications for ‘grammar’ and for building knowledge


Bernstein’s model of intellectual fields

• hierarchical and horizontal knowledge structures

• integration and subsumption Vs addition and displacement

• strength of ‘grammars’

– how clearly concepts define their referents

– strong grammar is better: shared referents for comparing alternative explanations


Weak grammar of ‘grammar’

• what are its referents? – ‘an explicit conceptual syntax capable of relatively

precise empirical descriptions and/or of generating formal modelling of empirical relations’ (2000: 163).

– strong grammars ‘often achieve their power by rigorous restrictions on the empirical phenomena they address’ (Ibid.).

• raises questions:– something to compare alternative theories to, but does

that ‘something’ make a difference?– what kind of ‘power’ is achieved by restrictions?– what costs are involved?


Building beyond ‘grammar’

• ‘grammar’ needs conceptual development

• there are different kinds of ‘strong grammar’

• each both enables and constrains knowledge-building


Building code theory (one part of story)

Inherited concepts LCT(Specialization)

pedagogic codes+C, +F

specialization codes

ER+/-, SR+/- abbreviates : ER(+C, +F), SR(+C, +F)

pedagogic device epistemic-pedagogic device

knowledge structures• grammars• gazes

knowledge-knower structures• epistemic relations: insights• social relations: gazes



Code modalitiesDimension

LegitimationDevice

Autonomy

Density

Specialisation

Temporality

legitimationcodes

PA+/-, RA+/-

MaD+/-, MoD+/-

ER+/-, SR+/-

TP+/-, TO+/-

Semantics SG+/-, SD+/-

Specialization codes


ER and SR can each be stronger (+) or weaker (-)

Two strengths give specialization codes (ER+/-, SR+/-)



ER+

ER-

SR+SR-

elitecode

knowercode

knowledge code

relativist code

From ‘grammar’ to epistemic relations

• not restricted to specific set of practices • more operationalizable• integrated into more inclusive set of

concepts (specialization codes)– ‘grammar’ raises question of basis of fields

such as humanities – these are often based on knower codes (SR+)– ‘epistemic’ access is only part of the story

… before we develop epistemic relationswww.legitimationcodetheory.com 13



ER+

ER-

SR+SR-

elitecode

knowercode

knowledge code

relativist code

Different code theories

• knowledge-code development– generated by search for explanatory power

• embraces more phenomena

• internally coherent and conceptually economical

• knower-code development– legitimacy based on specific author

• keep basic framework in amber

• other contributors devalorised




ER+

ER-

SR+SR-

elitecode

knowercode

knowledge code

relativist code

Epistemic relations


OR and DR can each be stronger (+) or weaker (-)

Two strengths give modalities of epistemic relations or ‘insights’:

ER+/- = OR+/-, DR+/-

Insights


OR+

OR-

DR+DR-

puristinsight

doctrinalinsight

situationalinsight

knower/noinsight

So what?

• insights shape practices, including knowledge-building

• examples Bernstein described as ‘strong grammar’: economics and physics

• both knowledge-code fields (stronger ER) but contrasting modalities:– doctrinal insight (OR-, DR+)

– situational insight (OR+, DR-)


Economics

• dominated by neoclassical theories or ‘orthodox economics’

• rise of ‘heterodox economics’ / ‘Post-Autistic Economics’– varied groups of approaches sharing

opposition to orthodox economics

• both camps are knowledge codes (stronger epistemic relations) but different insights


Orthodox economics (DR)

• doxic belief in mathematical modelling– ‘To a mainstream economist, theory means model,

and model means ideas expressed in mathematical form. … In more advanced courses, economic theories are presented in more mathematically elaborate models. … They learn that the legitimate way to argue is with models and econometrically constructed forms of evidence … Claiming that a model is deficient is a minor feat … What is really valued is coming up with a better model.’ (Strassman 1994)


• doxic belief in mathematical modelling– ‘to get an article published in most of today’s

top rank economic journals, you must provide a mathematical model, even if it adds nothing’ (Lipsey 2001)

• relatively strong discursive relations (DR+)– strongly bounds and controls ‘economic’

approaches as basis of legitimacy


Orthodox economics (OR)• LCT distinction between focus and basis

• focus: restricted range of variables, factors etc in individual models

• basis: modelling is seen as universally valid and knowledge generated by a model is portrayed as applicable beyond conditions of model

• relatively weak ontic relations (OR-)– weakly bounds and controls objects of study as

basis of legitimacy


Doctrinal insight• stronger discursive relations (DR+)

– common language enabling cohesion and continuity

– cumulative knowledge

• weaker ontic relations (OR-)– disconnected from empirical reality

– knowledge of little explanatory value

=> doctrinal insight (OR-, DR+)


• ‘economics has become increasingly an arcane branch of mathematics rather than dealing with real economic problems’ (Friedman 1999)

• ‘a theoretical system which floats in the air and which bears little relation to what happens in the real world’ (Coase 1999)


Trajectory of orthodox economics


OR+

OR-

DR+DR-

puristinsight

doctrinalinsight

situationalinsight

knower/noinsight

Heterodox economics

Our view is: courses can no longer focus on TOOLS (maximizing under constraint, finding local and general extrema), but on PROBLEMS (incomes, poverty, unemployment, monetary policy, international trade …, etc.). The tools would then be used only to the limit of their relevance for analyzing such problems, and not for their own sake.

(Gilles Raveaud, 2000)


Heterodox economics

• emphasises problem-situations as basis of insight– stronger ontic relations

• downplays dominance of single approach and encourages plurality of theories, models, methods, etc.– weaker discursive relations

=> situational insight (OR+, DR-)


Aim of heterodox economics


OR+

OR-

DR+DR-

puristinsight

doctrinalinsight

situationalinsight

knower/noinsight

Physics

• Bernstein’s exemplar of hierarchical knowledge structures: strong grammar

• two principal triangles: quantum mechanics and general relativity

• aim: integration within a Grand Unified Theory

• split in physics: string theory and various critics


String theory (DR)

• rapidly became only legitimate approach‘Very quickly there developed an almost cultlike atmosphere. You were either a string theorist or you were not … There was a sense that the one true theory had been discovered. Nothing else was important or worth thinking about’ (Smolin 2006).

• stronger discursive relations (DR+)


String theory (OR)

• focus: creates strictly delimited worlds

• basis: makes universal claims

• distanced relationship with empirical world (experimental data) and difficult to falsify

• as many as 10500 possible string theories

• weaker ontic relations (OR-)


Doctrinal insight (OR-, DR+)

• legitimacy flows from using right approach (DR+) and not from relations to data (OR-)

• clearly defined and delimited referents, but approach defines the world– e.g. claim world must be multi-dimensional

‘because string theory doesn’t make sense in any other kind of space’ (Glashow & Born 1988).


Two simple points

• ‘grammar’ is not enough to understand knowledge-building– concept needs development

• ‘strong grammar’ is not enough to achieve knowledge-building– the nature of referents matter


Epistemic relations

• extended ERs to distinguish OR/DR• concepts being enacted in empirical

research into physics, biology, and music• different ‘insights’ have effects• address questions raised by ‘grammar’:

– do referents matter?– what ‘power’ is achieved by ‘rigorous

restrictions’ on empirical phenomena– what costs?


Insights into knowledge-building

• cumulative knowledge-building requires:1. diversity of solutions to problems

2. shared means of choosing among them

• insights represent different rulers of achievement– both affect diversity of solutions and means

of choosing, in different ways


Doctrinal insight: positives

• embraces wide range of phenomena within coherent framework

• shared basis for choosing among ideas• identity, cohesion and sense of purpose

– ‘unlike other fields of physics, there is a clear distinction between string theorists and non-string theorists … [with] a remarkable uniformity of view’ among the former’. (Smolin 2006)

• useful for fragmented, theory-light fields


Doctrinal insight: negatives

• DR+ straitjacket restricts diversity of ideas- ‘relatively open minded when it comes to new

ideas but quite close minded when it comes to alternative methodologies. If it isn’t modelled, it isn’t economics, no matter how insightful’. (Colander et al. 2004)

- disengagement with empirical world – imaginary worlds

• over-reaching of conclusions and ideas• realist backlash leading to fragmentation


Situational insight: positives

• shared problem-situations for bringing approaches together

• encourages range of possible solutions

• enables greater empirical validity– real world: multi-faceted, laminar, complex,

requiring multi-disciplinary approaches and depth ontology

• for fields with developed theoretical frameworks aiming for real-world impact


Situational insight: negatives

• if discursive relations become too weak:– problematises basis for choosing among

explanations– weaker cohesion and basis of identity– possible proliferation of languages

• if ontic relations become too strong, could lead to series of context-dependent models

• i.e. taken to excess: relativism and context-dependency


Insights

• no one insight guarantees cumulative and powerful knowledge always and everywhere

• question of which insight valuable when, where and for whom– doctrinal insight for building new fields? (but

suffocating and sclerotic)

– situational insight for explanations of real world problems ? (avoiding extremes)


Futures and options

• doctrinal insight – secondary discourse of commentary,

exposition and ‘epistemological botany’

– reducing or strongly bounding new concepts

– inter-disciplinary collaboration as a dialogue of the deaf

• selection, recontextualisation and evaluation based on discursive relations


Futures and options

• situational insight– primary discourse of data analysis of problem-

situations for explanatory power

– cumulative evolution of framework

– openness to genuinely inter-disciplinary collaboration and exchange

• selection, recontextualisation and evaluation based on ontic relations


‘less an allegiance to an approach, and more a dedication to a problem’

Bernstein (1975)


building knowledge about knowledge exploring epistemic relations and values karl maton department of...

Documents

grammar grammar

sr slide

building knowledge

weak grammar of grammar

sd slide

cumulative knowledge

knowledge focus

limitations of grammar