Content uploaded by Malcolm Ashmore
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Malcolm Ashmore on May 06, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting Sociology of Scientific Knowledge
... Furthermore, this reflexivity is evident within individual texts, as researchers expose the choices they have made in order to retain some of the "mess" involved in conducting social science research (Law, 2004). Thus, ANT can be viewed as a form of "reflexive anthropology", defined by Ashmore (1989) as "the joint project of writing selfconsciously experimental ethnography together with the study of ethnography as writing" (p. 50). ...
... Dialogue is often used in STS texts (see e.g. Ashmore, 1989;Knorr-Cetina, 1999), and ANT also uses this tool to convey and discuss ideas (see e.g. Callon & Law, 1995;Latour, 1996aLatour, , 2005Law & Singleton, 2012). ...
... See Joly (2015) for a discussion of how the challenges of governing emerging technology have been approached since the 1970s. 9 On reflexivity, see Ashmore (1989); see also Borges (1962). 10 Like the figure of the author, the "author of record" (AoR) is a material, discursive, and social assemblage intertwined with broader machinery of authority and control, such as law and political economy. ...
The abstract and keywords below were produced by a publicly available chatbot (setting aside this first, italicized portion). The paper was inspired by a series of unsolicited emails to a professor from prospective PhD students. Suspecting some of the emails were chatbot-generated, he decided to undertake further investigation. This paper presents a reflexive exploration of large language models (LLMs) by engaging a chatbot in a recursive dialogue on AI's social, ethical, and political dimensions. The study probes how LLMs, such as chatbots, mediate academic and public discourse, emphasizing the potential shifts in knowledge production, authorship, and authority. By experimenting with chatbot-generated text, the author assesses the recursive structures and potential biases that arise when AI participates in human communication systems. The findings reflect on the ambiguous boundaries of authorship and intellectual integrity in an age of AI-assisted writing, raising questions about societal implications and the efficacy of governing such technology. This work underscores the complex dynamics of AI-mediated communication, proposing that more nuanced forms of oversight and ethical consideration are essential as LLMs continue to scale within knowledge systems.
... Además, el constructivismo de la Psicología Discursiva proviene de una tradición más bien específica. Esta tradición se desarrolló con base en la problemática de la sociología del conocimiento científico (Ashmore, 1989) que tenía que ver con el papel constructivo de las descripciones y las versiones. Esta característica hace que el constructivismo de la Psicología Discursiva esté separado del constructivismo social fenomenológico de Berger y Luckmann (1966). ...
Este artículo describe algunas características fundamentales del enfoque psicológico al discurso. En particular, la psicología discursiva está analíticamente enfocada a la forma en la que los fenómenos psicológicos pueden considerarse como fenómenos prácticos, responsables, personificados, encarnados y expuestos. Este artículo describe la versión particular del constructivismo que establece la psicología discursiva y su enfoque distintivo a la cognición como puntos de contraste en un rango de perspectivas distintas que incluyen el análisis crítico del discurso, la sociolingüística, la etno-metodología y el análisis conversacional. Por último este artículo describe tres áreas en las que la psicología discursiva está relacionada con la crítica social: el trabajo sobre categorías y prejuicios, algunos aspectos relacionados con el cognitivismo y sus problemas y el trabajo que intenta desarrollar una psicología discursiva en las instituciones.
... For other discussions of "reflexivity" in the social sciences, see, e.g.,Ashmore (1989) andLynch (2000).4 Originally written in 1970, Biology of Cognition was published as the first part ofMaturana & Varela's, 1980 book Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. ...
Explanatory diversity is a salient feature of the sciences of the mind, where different projects focus on neural, psychological, cognitive, social or other explanations. The same happens within embodied cognitive science, where ecological, enactive, dynamical, phenomenological and other approaches differ from each other in their explanations of the embodied mind. As traditionally conceived, explanatory diversity is philosophically problematic, fueling debates about whether the different explanations are competing, compatible, or tangential. In contrast, this paper takes the perspective of embodied cognitive science as its starting point and accordingly approaches explanatory diversity not as a problem to be solved, but as a phenomenon to be understood. Recent work has explored how the view of cognition as embodied motivates reflexively viewing science as a situated embodied cognitive practice. Here I argue that this reflexive turn motivates adopting a pluralistic stance when it comes to questions about theoretical and methodological disagreements. In particular, it motivates moving away from thinking in terms of explanations as disembodied entities that compete with one another, and instead thinking in terms of different explanatory styles as embodied practices of explaining, many of which might be legitimate and warranted independently of whether and how the explanations themselves relate to one another.
What has formed the main purpose of the current research is the analysis of a mysterious field of knowledge called common sense. This research, in fact, has determined the contemplation of an epistemic field as its fundamental goal which should be considered as the opposite side of the scientific knowledge field. Since this opposition is based on the specific epistemology and methodology of each of these fields, the upcoming research has disclosed common sense from two epistemological and methodological aspects. This research has shown that the aforementioned field of knowledge has such bonds with interference, entanglement and ambiguity that any kind of epistemologically disclosure of it should always pay attention that it is faced with the embodiment of indeterminability, uncertainty and undecidability. The current research, in addition, has shown that what should be counted as the turning point of the methodological disclosure of common sense is the authority of this epistemic domain in a form of human being that prefers people over things.
After a brief introduction dedicated to Edmund Husserl, this chapter will provide an in-depth examination of Alfred Schutz’s social phenomenology, Berger and Luckmann’s social construction of reality, and Harold Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology. Many examples will clarify their theories, including Garfinkle’s concepts of “accountability,” “reflexivity,” “indexicality,” and the “unique adequacy requirement of methods.”
مناقشة الانعكاسيَّة في الاثنوغرافيا ليست مقاربة جديدة. فقد كانت مستوطنة في العلوم الاجتماعية منذ نشر مذكرات الاستاذ مالينوفسكي، التي أدت إلى التحول الانعكاسي في الأنثروبولوجيا عندما أصبح الاثنوغرافي (المؤلف) مسؤولاً لأول مرة عن أزمة الموضوعية المتعلقة بمصير الأنثروبولوجيا التفسيرية/ التأويلية. وقد بدّل هذا النهج جذريًا علاقة عالِم الأنثروبولوجيا، وتمثيلات الفاعلين (الممثلين) في النصوص، وأصبح الفهم الانعكاسي للقوة الأكاديمية للتمثيل، وتحليل عملية حركة (ثقافة الكتابة) جزءًا ضروريًا لفهم وضع الأثنوغرافي في حالة العمل الميداني. الأنثروبولوجيا لم تعد علمًا موضوعيًا أحادي الجانب ومتمحوراً حول الذات. يتم تفسيرها اليوم بسبب طبيعتها ووجوهها المتعددة التي تخلق انعكاسًا فسيفسائيًا في النص الاثنوغرافي يشترك فيه (الاثنوغرافي، والمبحوثين، والقراء). وعندما يقترن البحث الإثنوغرافي مع الانعكاسية في مختلف مراحل البحث (من البداية إلى النهاية)، تكون القدرة على رؤية واقع مختلف أكثر احتمالً. في هذا البحث، نلقي نظرة على ما تعنيه الانعكاسية في العمل الأثنوغرافي، فضلاً عن متطلباتها وتحدياتها. وتقديم نماذج لنصوص اثنوغرافية ذات طابع انعكاسي.
ChatGPT is a fascinating AI text generator tool. It is a language model developed by OpenAI, a research and deployment company with the mission, according to OpenAI’s website: “to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity”. ChatGPT is able to generate human-like texts. But how does it work? What about the quality of the texts it provides? And is it capable of being self-reflective? Information sources must be efficient, effective and reliable in education, in order to enhance students’ learning process. For this reason, we started a dialogue with ChatGPT-3 while using, among others, a SWOT analysis it generated about its own functioning in an educational setting. This enabled us, as human authors, to analyze the extent to which this AI system is able to practice self-reflection. Finally, the paper sketches implications for education and future research.
Today, a transnational constellation of 'rule of law' experts advise on 'good' legal systems to countries in the Global South. Yet these experts often claim that the 'rule of law' is nearly impossible to define, and they frequently point to the limits of their own expertise. In this innovative book, Deval Desai identifies this form of expertise as 'expert ignorance'. Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, Desai draws on insights from legal theory, sociology, development studies, and performance studies to explore how this paradoxical form of expertise works in practice. With a range of illustrative cases that span both global and local perspectives, this book considers the impact of expert ignorance on the rule of law and on expert governance more broadly. Contributing to the study of transnational law, governance, and expertise, Desai demonstrates the enduring power of proclaiming what one does not know. This title is available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
The covid pandemic, which started in December 2019, was announced with a delay of two months in many developing countries like Turkey. With the announcement of the first cases in Turkey in the second week of March 2020, it became clear that a precise different situation would be experienced in the socioeconomic and health fields, whichpeople had never faced before. Also, It took time for the World Health Organization to decide whether Covid-19 was a pandemic or an endemic. Meanwhile, the first problem faced by the public was the contradictory statements made by politicians about what happened. However, the issue that everyone discussed the most was the immune system and the biopolitics of politicians regarding the covid -19 vaccine and its development process. Public understanding of science has led governments to be unable to eliminate covid-related manipulations during covid’s evolution from endemic to the pandemic. After a while, governments tried to cover up the lack of vaccination by using these manipulations by the media. This whole process was built on the biopolitics of immunization and eventually led to the strengthening of public opposition to vaccines. The first aim of this article is to present how the government’s science communication strategy in Turkey has developed a collective resistance to vaccines through a case study. This analysis applies the “Four Moments” processes from Michael Callon’s article “Law, Power, action, and Belief: a new sociology of knowledge.” In addition, the article aims to show the underlying reasons for the anti-vaccination opposition that has been experienced in Turkey in the last two years and has grown stronger over time.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.