Farmer-Scientist Knowledge Exchange

The last 25 years has seen a paradigm shift in the understanding of the nature of knowledge and how it is exchanged in the agricultural context. A changing backdrop, with the move towards multi-functional land management, persistent environmental problems and the search for sustainable agricultural approaches, has brought new challenges. At the same time the research agenda on knowledge has changed as an era of positivism, during which science and scientific experts were given unrivalled authority, was challenged by social studies of science that began to question the superiority of scientific knowledge, and value alternative forms of knowledge such as those held by farmers. Theory and practice of knowledge exchange in agriculture has evolved in line with this, shifting from a linear model of knowledge transfer to a perspective that integrates knowledge from multiple actors through facilitation and participation and emphasises learning in a social context

Regenerative medicine: from the laboratory looking out

Regenerative medicine has a rich and pluralistic history, characterised by a patchwork of innovation and blind alleys. As scientific researchers, our understanding of this hybrid field of regeneration in a historical and cultural context is far from complete, in part due to the range of non-medical contributory disciplines and a fascination with the future directions of research. This paper explores the different definitions of regenerative medicine and highlights issues faced in regenerative medicine research. We argue that a closer relationship between regenerative medicine and the humanities would enable researchers to better understand the historical context, ethical implications and public perception of this rapidly developing field. In many cases, this would be through better awareness of the existing expertise available in humanities research, which is often not visible to those in the laboratory

We get the algorithms of our ground truths: Designing referential databases in digital image processing.

This article documents the practical efforts of a group of scientists designing an image-processing algorithm for saliency detection. By following the actors of this computer science project, the article shows that the problems often considered to be the starting points of computational models are in fact provisional results of time-consuming, collective and highly material processes that engage habits, desires, skills and values. In the project being studied, problematization processes lead to the constitution of referential databases called 'ground truths' that enable both the effective shaping of algorithms and the evaluation of their performances. Working as important common touchstones for research communities in image processing, the ground truths are inherited from prior problematization processes and may be imparted to subsequent ones. The ethnographic results of this study suggest two complementary analytical perspectives on algorithms: (1) an 'axiomatic' perspective that understands algorithms as sets of instructions designed to solve given problems computationally in the best possible way, and (2) a 'problem-oriented' perspective that understands algorithms as sets of instructions designed to computationally retrieve outputs designed and designated during specific problematization processes. If the axiomatic perspective on algorithms puts the emphasis on the numerical transformations of inputs into outputs, the problem-oriented perspective puts the emphasis on the definition of both inputs and outputs

Bigger, Faster, Better? Rhetorics and Practices of Large-Scale Research in Contemporary Bioscience

publication-status: Publishedtypes: ArticleEditorial for Special Issu

Bioprospecting the African Renaissance: The new value of muthi in South Africa

This article gives an overview of anthropological research on bioprospecting in general and of available literature related to bioprospecting particularly in South Africa. It points out how new insights on value regimes concerning plant-based medicines may be gained through further research and is meant to contribute to a critical discussion about the ethics of Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS). In South Africa, traditional healers, plant gatherers, petty traders, researchers and private investors are assembled around the issues of standardization and commercialization of knowledge about plants. This coincides with a nation-building project which promotes the revitalization of local knowledge within the so called African Renaissance. A social science analysis of the transformation of so called Traditional Medicine (TM) may shed light onto this renaissance by tracing social arenas in which different regimes of value are brought into conflict. When medicinal plants turn into assets in a national and global economy, they seem to be manipulated and transformed in relation to their capacity to promote health, their market value, and their potential to construct new ethics of development. In this context, the translation of socially and culturally situated local knowledge about muthi into global pharmaceuticals creates new forms of agency as well as new power differentials between the different actors involved

The Past and Future of Evolutionary Economics : Some Reflections Based on New Bibliometric Evidence

This document is the Accepted Manuscript version of the following article: Geoffrey M. Hodgson, and Juha-Antti Lamberg, ‘The past and future of evolutionary economics: some reflections based on new bibliometric evidence’, Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, first online 20 June 2016. The final publication is available at Springer via doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40844-016-0044-3 © Japan Association for Evolutionary Economics 2016The modern wave of ‘evolutionary economics’ was launched with the classic study by Richard Nelson and Sidney Winter (1982). This paper reports a broad bibliometric analysis of ‘evolutionary’ research in the disciplines of management, business, economics, and sociology over 25 years from 1986 to 2010. It confirms that Nelson and Winter (1982) is an enduring nodal reference point for this broad field. The bibliometric evidence suggests that ‘evolutionary economics’ has benefitted from the rise of business schools and other interdisciplinary institutions, which have provided a home for evolutionary terminology, but it has failed to nurture a strong unifying core narrative or theory, which in turn could provide superior answers to important questions. This bibliometric evidence also shows that no strong cluster of general theoretical research immediately around Nelson and Winter (1982) has subsequently emerged. It identifies developmental problems in a partly successful but fragmented field. Future research in ‘evolutionary economics’ needs a more integrated research community with shared conceptual narratives and common research questions, to promote conversation and synergy between diverse clusters of research.Peer reviewedFinal Accepted Versio