Challenging the Institutional Politics of Life in the Making of Refused Knowledge

Author:

Crabu StefanoORCID

Abstract

AbstractRefused knowledge communities (RKCs) can be analytically framed as specific social worlds, in the context of which questioning science-related epistemic, professional, and political arrangements is a crucial dimension of mutual concern. Hence, understanding refused knowledge followers’ attitudes to biomedical theories and their part in public health and healthcare systems and professional healthcare practice is urgent if we are to cast light on the conditions nurturing the legitimacy of knowledge emerging outside the boundaries of science. Against this backdrop, the aim of this chapter is to shed light on how RKCs engage in a contentious relationship with the conditions under which biomedical knowledge is shaped and mobilised by health professionals. In so doing, it elucidates how these contentious dynamics are entangled with the ways in which RKCs confer credibility and reliability on refused knowledge itself. Indeed, RKCs are not merely concerned with challenging the content of scientific and biomedical knowledge. They also question its epistemic, professional, and economic roots, that is, RKCs argue that claims and knowledge elaborated and enacted in the context of biomedicine, and the life sciences in general, are enmeshed with specific social, political, and material interests, and therefore either not to be believed or at least treated with scepticism.

Publisher

Springer Nature Singapore

Reference29 articles.

1. Ball, J. (2017). Post-truth: How bullshit conquered the world. Biteback Publishing.

2. Berg, M., & Timmermans, S. (2003). The gold standard. The challenge of evidence-based medicine and standardization in health care. Temple University Press.

3. Bijker, W. E., Bal, R., & Hendriks, R. (2009). The paradox of scientific authority: The role of scientific advice in democracies. MIT Press.

4. Bory, P., Crabu, S., Morsello, B., Tomasi, M., & Tosoni, S. (2022a). Rethinking the nexus between science, politics and society in the age of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Tecnoscienza: Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies, 12(2), 141–188.

5. Bory, P., Giardullo, P., Tosoni, S., & Turrini, V. (2022b). We will multiply the fires of resistance: The catalysts of dissent against institutional science and their interplay with refused knowledge communities. Public Understanding of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221113524

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3