AO: Green notes that knowledge studies are at their strongest when focused on careful study of how knowledge objects come to be generated. She argues that such an approach brings to attention the ways in which research processes bring particular realities into being.
AO: Green notes the difficulty of translating different knowledges is because the sciences have inherited 300 years of tradition: to remove almost all bodily senses except the visual from its ways of knowing. She notes the enumerable – that which can be counted – counts as evidence. She writes: “The archives, databases and evidentiaries measure that which is visible within a particular intellectual heritage, or scholarly orientation. Technologies, in other words, bring particular knowledge objects into being. The implication: programmes of research that look for generative dialogues across knowledge traditions can work towards grasping different measurables, and different evidentiaries, and perhaps need to be bold enough to rethink what it is that technologies could be measuring. In order to pursue this kind of innovation, the methodology is ethnographic: detailed, careful attention to how people know what they claim.” This is important for thinking about what the documentation and opening up of various types of “evidence” or “data” could do towards this work. What other knowledge objects can be captured through repositories like PECE (vs journal article repositories) and what might that do for greater translation of knowleges?
