Dr. Smiljana Antonijević
 What are epistemic cultures and trading zones?
 What is the field of digital humanities and social sciences,
and what changes does it initiate?
 Research: how do epistemic cultures encounter each other
in the field of digital humanities and social sciences?
 Why is this relevant for my work?
 Epistemology: episteme
(knowledge) + logos (study).
 Epistemology: episteme
(knowledge) + logos (study).
 Culture: the diversity of ways in
which human begins establish
and live their lives.
 Epistemology: episteme
(knowledge) + logos (study).
 Culture: the diversity of ways in
which human begins establish
and live their lives.
 Epistemic cultures: the
diversity of ways in which
experts and expert
communities establish and
conduct their work .
 Epistemic communities: expert
communities that produce and
warrant knowledge.
 Epistemic cultures: social and
symbolic dimensions of expert
communities
- focus on social construction of
knowledge and knowledge claims;
- practices and beliefs that constitute a
community’s attitude toward
knowledge;
- ways of constructing and justifying
knowledge.
 Epistemic communities: expert
communities that produce and
warrant knowledge.
 Epistemic cultures: social and
symbolic dimensions of expert
communities
- focus on social construction of
knowledge and knowledge claims;
- practices and beliefs that constitute a
community’s attitude toward
knowledge;
- ways of constructing and justifying
knowledge.
“This science of possibilities (anthropology)
develops not just from an openness to its subject
matter—the axiom that everything could always
be otherwise—but from the manner in which
work gets done. It often gets done despite
theoretical inclinations and specific analytics.”
(Strathern, 2005: 453; italics in the original)
“The strength of anthropology is that we appreciate multiperspectivism. Our recognition of this universe of pluralities is
surely anthropology’s real competence.” (p. 101)
Diane Forsythe (1998)
Studying Those Who Study Us: An Anthropologist in
the World of Artificial Intelligence
Karin Knorr-Cetina (1999)
Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make
Knowledge
 A metaphor used to describe various aspects of scientific
collaboration.
 Rooted in anthropological studies of intercultural exchange of goods,
taking place despite differences in language and culture.
 Peter Galisonn (1997): collaboration between physicists, doctors, and
engineers in developing radar, MRI.
 Physicists and engineers had to gradually develop a pidgin language
that involves shared concepts.
 Use of digital technologies in the humanities and social
science research and teaching.
 Broad range of applications, from very simple to very
complex (word processing, Google search, linguistic
computing, visualization, augmented reality …).
 Digital data, collections, archives, virtual research
environments, digital tools, digitized and born digital
materials.
 Use of digital technologies in the humanities and social
science research and teaching.
 Broad range of applications, from very simple to very
complex (word processing, Google search, linguistic
computing, visualization, augmented reality …).
 Digital data, collections, archives, virtual research
environments, digital tools, digitized and born digital
materials.
 Use of digital technologies in the humanities and social
science research and teaching.
 Broad range of applications, from very simple to very
complex (word processing, Google search, linguistic
computing, visualization, augmented reality …).
 Digital data, collections, archives, virtual research
environments, digital tools, digitized and born digital
materials.
 Evolutionary changes
Small and gradual changes, sometimes even difficult
to notice; using email, word processor, Google search,
electronic databases …
aradigm changes
Changes of the basic assumptions — paradigms — in
scientific theories (Khun, 1962).
Universal humanism
Universal scholarly diversity, epistemic multiculturalism.
 Evolutionary changes
Small and gradual changes, sometimes even difficult
to notice; using email, word processor, Google search,
electronic databases …
 Paradigm changes
Changes of the basic assumptions — paradigms — in
scientific theories (Khun, 1962).
 Universal humanism
Universal scholarly diversity, epistemic multiculturalism.
 Evolutionary changes
Small and gradual changes, sometimes even difficult
to notice; using email, word processor, Google search,
electronic databases …
 Paradigm changes
Changes of the basic assumptions — paradigms — in
scientific theories (Khun, 1962).
 Universal humanism
Universal scholarly diversity, epistemic multiculturalism.
 Evolutionary changes
Small and gradual changes, sometimes even difficult
to notice; using email, word processor, Google search,
electronic databases …
 Paradigm changes
Changes of the basic assumptions — paradigms — in
scientific theories (Khun, 1962).
 Universal humanism
Universal scholarly diversity, epistemic multiculturalism.
 Changes of the basic assumptions — paradigms — in scientific
theories (Khun, 1962).
disciplinary work – epistemic encounters (literary studies,
history, computer sciences, anthropology, electrical engineering,
art history ...)
- different premises of knowledge-seeking (objects of inquiry, research
questions, methodologies)
- different research practices (collaborative vs. individual)
- different scholarly outputs
 Changes of the basic assumptions — paradigms — in scientific
theories (Khun, 1962).
 Interdisciplinary work – epistemic encounters (literary studies,
history, computer sciences, anthropology, electrical
engineering, art history ...)
ifferent premises of knowledge-seeking (objects of inquiry, research
questions, methodologies)
- different research practices (collaborative vs. individual)
- different scholarly outputs
 Changes of the basic assumptions — paradigms — in scientific
theories (Khun, 1962).
 Interdisciplinary work – epistemic encounters (literary studies,
history, computer sciences, anthropology, electrical
engineering, art history ...)
- different premises of knowledge-seeking (objects of inquiry, research
questions, methodologies)
- different research practices (collaborative vs. individual)
- different scholarly outputs
The dislocation and relocation of concepts
are inherent to the practice of making
knowledge.
But it would be naïve to imagine
that along with the borrowing of constructs
goes the borrowing of the understandings that
produced them.
It is important to know the way
such borrowings recontextualize the
conceptual intent with which the constructs
were once used.
‘I went to sleep one day a cultural critic
and woke the next metamorphosed
into a data processor.’
Alan Liu, 2004
 Three projects: Alfalab, Humanities Information Practices, Digital
Scholarly Workflow
- 2009-2010: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; University
of Oxford.
- 2012-present: Penn State University
 Fieldwork: site visits, observation, in-depth interviews (observing
epistemic cultures in action).
 Linguists, historians of religion, art historians, anthropologists,
musicologists, computer scientists, experts in science and
technology studies, and so on.
Site visits
Case studies
Interviews
“
In those days [10 years ago] computer scientists at your own
university wouldn’t even want to talk to you.
Even now when we work with them what computer science
recognizes as research and what humanities and social sciences
recognize as research are different things. So you have to find a
common set of research goals.
Dr Neil Fraistat
MITH
 Karina van Dalen-Oskam
“
It was as if the scales dropped from our eyes, it was as we had
seen the future. The world was the same and yet completely
different and new, it was amazing, we were just blown away.
We’ve gotten much more familiar with these kinds of
technologies and possibilities, we do not have that sort of ‘ah’
experience every day.
Dr Anthony Cascardi
UC Berkeley
 Mariken Teeuwen
“
Humanists and social scientists … are lacking a frame within which
to say what they might expect, or what they might want, in a way
that would help development process.
The first thing that we need more of is just better and easier
communications across IT people, computer scientists and
humanists and social scientists. The languages are very different,
hugely different.
Dr Johanna Drucker
UCLA
 Maarten Hoogerwerf
“
I took the classes in computer science in part because my parents
were concerned that I wanted to be a professional historian and
wanted to make sure that I came out of college with some practical
skills. I really enjoyed programming, but went the history rout.
And then, when I got here, I was looking at some historical
materials and I was thinking ‘wow, this would work great in a
database!’ … So, I did not come to them [programmers] and said
‘build me this tool’; I said, ‘I want you to teach me how to build my
tool’.
Jean Bauer, PhD student
University of Virginia
“
The humanities increasingly need good criteria for assessing
the intellectual content of the project. We need for big
professional groups to be able to say what is the intellectual
value here, what is it contributing to the field, where is the
new knowledge, what are the research methods, are they
sound.
Michael Hall
Dr Janice Reiff
UCLA
 Joris van Zundert
Connecting epistemic cultures
Developing cross-disciplinary
understanding
Promoting user-centered
approach
Implementing feedback cycles
User-testing sessions
Discussing epistemological and
methodological differences
Developing common vocabulary
Promoting collaborative writing
Supporting shared values
Team meetings
Listening to voices from the field
Harvesting best practices
Sharing experiences
Supporting collaboration
Fieldwork
Sharing experiences and practices
Presenting our approach
Supporting interaction within the
community of practice
Promoting critical reflection
Dissemination
My approach
Use
Structure
Content
My approach
Use
Structure
Content
Fostering epistemic encounters and user involvement early
and often.
Developing non-data driven approach (data linked to interrogation).
Recognizing researchers’ sensibility to new ways of working.
Understanding epistemic cultures and cultures of formalization.
Accepting boundaries or limits of technology.
My outputs
- variety of strategies to stimulate and enhance collaborative work
among researchers across epistemic cultures;
- development of shared research agendas, common vocabularies,
understanding researchers’ needs when working in digital
settings;
- cultural interfaces between researchers specifically suited to
digital humanities and social sciences;
My outputs
- integrated perspectives of various disciplines and stakeholders—
from medievalists, to software developers, to funders …
- conceptual input for
- demonstrators (TextLab, GeoLab, and LifeLab) and the portal,
(http://alfalab.ehumanities.nl/ )
- two project reports
- three peer-reviewed publications
- fifteen peer-reviewed conference panels and presentations
- participation in more than a dozen expert meetings.
 Universal scholarly diversity, epistemic multiculturalism.
 Revealing layers between alternative understandings of the
“human”.
 “Lived experience refuses to fit any single, stable organization of
the variety of human knowledges.” (Liu, 2009: 29)
 Understanding the full diversity of humanity requires full
methodological/disciplinary diversity.
 How do you understand epistemic multiculturlism?
 In what ways your epistemic cultural background
influences your research?
 In what ways your epistemic cultural background
influences your understanding of the examined
phenomena?
 As a student of cultural encounters, how would you
foster interdisciplinary collaboration?
Thank you
Questions?