北极专门知识的范围:传统专业知识理论与土著专业知识之间的不匹配

IF 1.4 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ECOLOGY
Gabriella Gricius
{"title":"北极专门知识的范围:传统专业知识理论与土著专业知识之间的不匹配","authors":"Gabriella Gricius","doi":"10.1017/s003224742400007x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>While much work on expertise has explored the mobilisation and production of knowledge, the development of epistemic communities, and the mechanisms through which expertise operates – little work has been done exploring how expertise is understood across academic literature on particular regional cases such as the Arctic. In this article, I scope a broad literature review of the Arctic, seeking out how expertise has been depicted and framed in academic and theoretical literature. The results are framed around five different themes: (1) expertise serving the interests of great powers, (2) recognition of the overall importance of expertise in Arctic governance, (3) the purpose of experts, (4) science diplomacy and expertise: a murky barrier, and (5) how to study experts, but also find that Indigenous knowledge is often left out of literature that relies upon Western frameworks of expertise. This incongruity suggests that there are two competing conceptualizations of Arctic expertise, one in theory and another in practice – which has consequences for how the region and its expertise are narrated.</p>","PeriodicalId":49685,"journal":{"name":"Polar Record","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scoping Arctic expertise: The mismatch between traditional theories of expertise and Indigenous expertise\",\"authors\":\"Gabriella Gricius\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s003224742400007x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>While much work on expertise has explored the mobilisation and production of knowledge, the development of epistemic communities, and the mechanisms through which expertise operates – little work has been done exploring how expertise is understood across academic literature on particular regional cases such as the Arctic. In this article, I scope a broad literature review of the Arctic, seeking out how expertise has been depicted and framed in academic and theoretical literature. The results are framed around five different themes: (1) expertise serving the interests of great powers, (2) recognition of the overall importance of expertise in Arctic governance, (3) the purpose of experts, (4) science diplomacy and expertise: a murky barrier, and (5) how to study experts, but also find that Indigenous knowledge is often left out of literature that relies upon Western frameworks of expertise. This incongruity suggests that there are two competing conceptualizations of Arctic expertise, one in theory and another in practice – which has consequences for how the region and its expertise are narrated.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49685,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Polar Record\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Polar Record\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s003224742400007x\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polar Record","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s003224742400007x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管许多关于专业知识的研究都探讨了知识的动员和生产、认识论社区的发展以及专业知识的运作机制,但很少有研究探讨如何在北极等特定地区的学术文献中理解专业知识。在本文中,我对北极地区进行了广泛的文献综述,探寻学术和理论文献是如何描述和构建专业知识的。研究结果围绕五个不同主题展开:(1) 专业知识服务于大国利益;(2) 认识到专业知识在北极治理中的整体重要性;(3) 专家的目的;(4) 科学外交与专业知识:一个模糊的障碍;(5) 如何研究专家。这种不协调表明,北极专业知识存在两种相互竞争的概念,一种是理论上的,另一种是实践中的--这对如何叙述该地区及其专业知识产生了影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Scoping Arctic expertise: The mismatch between traditional theories of expertise and Indigenous expertise

While much work on expertise has explored the mobilisation and production of knowledge, the development of epistemic communities, and the mechanisms through which expertise operates – little work has been done exploring how expertise is understood across academic literature on particular regional cases such as the Arctic. In this article, I scope a broad literature review of the Arctic, seeking out how expertise has been depicted and framed in academic and theoretical literature. The results are framed around five different themes: (1) expertise serving the interests of great powers, (2) recognition of the overall importance of expertise in Arctic governance, (3) the purpose of experts, (4) science diplomacy and expertise: a murky barrier, and (5) how to study experts, but also find that Indigenous knowledge is often left out of literature that relies upon Western frameworks of expertise. This incongruity suggests that there are two competing conceptualizations of Arctic expertise, one in theory and another in practice – which has consequences for how the region and its expertise are narrated.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Polar Record
Polar Record 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
25.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: Polar Record is an international, peer-reviewed scholarly periodical publishing results from a wide range of polar research areas. The journal covers original primary research papers in the humanities, social sciences, physical sciences, life sciences, and polar technology, as well as papers concerning current political, economic, legal, and environmental issues in the Arctic or Antarctic. Polar Record endeavours to provide rapid publication, normally within nine months of initial submission.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信