Articleshttp://hdl.handle.net/10398/79322013-05-20T17:49:12Z2013-05-20T17:49:12ZAnthropology as multi-natural ontology?Ratner, Helenehttp://hdl.handle.net/10398/86912013-05-06T06:43:16Z2013-05-06T00:00:00ZAnthropology as multi-natural ontology?
Ratner, Helene
As her title indicates, Marianne de Laet suggests that social epistemology could be
thought of as anthropology, in terms of how this mode of knowing has helped flesh out
the social dimensions of scientific knowledge. She does so firstly, by accounting for how
anthropological methods and concepts have contributed to science and technology studies
(STS) by providing an alternative to “believing the natives” i.e., scientists, hence
challenging positivist and objectivist accounts of science. She then specifies selected
analytical insights of anthropology. The concepts ‘culture’ and ‘practice’, she argues,
enable us to learn how “knowledge is social in an epistemic sense” (2012, 421). She
concludes her argument by questioning the distinction between epistemology and
ontology, maintaining that anthropology is social epistemology.
De Laet touches several key debates in the history of STS and much of her commentary
on the sociality of knowledge is difficult to disagree with. There are however, also some
elements in her argument with which I wish to engage critically. These include the
relationship between anthropology and STS and the relationship between the concepts of
culture and ontology. I will do so by drawing my inspiration from a contemporary a
debate across STS and anthropology that — like de Laet — regards entanglements of
epistemology and ontology, practice, and materiality. This project is also known as post-
ANT and empirical philosophy in STS (Mol 2002; Gad and Bruun Jensen 2010, 55-80;
Law and Hassard 1999) and lateral, multi-natural and ontological engagements in
anthropology (Maurer 2005; Riles 2000; Strathern 2004 [1991]; Carrithers et al. 2010,
152-200; Viveiros de Castro 2004, 463-484). De Laet mentions some of the same sources.
I will focus my commentary on these debates’ implications for the concept of culture and
“our terminological tinkering” (2012, 420). My aim is to provide a different account of
what anthropology has to offer STS and, as a consequence, to keep some interesting
tensions open between the conceptual and the empirical, between “us” and “them”, which
I believe de Laet resolves too quickly.
2013-05-06T00:00:00ZDigitalization, skilled labor and the productivity of firmsJacobsen, JóannesRose Skaksen, JanSørensen, Andershttp://hdl.handle.net/10398/86482013-01-30T11:49:40Z2013-01-30T00:00:00ZDigitalization, skilled labor and the productivity of firms
Jacobsen, Jóannes; Rose Skaksen, Jan; Sørensen, Anders
2013-01-30T00:00:00ZAutomation og arbejdsproduktivitetKromann, LeneRose Skaksen, JanSørensen, Andershttp://hdl.handle.net/10398/86492013-01-30T11:42:27Z2013-01-30T00:00:00ZAutomation og arbejdsproduktivitet
Kromann, Lene; Rose Skaksen, Jan; Sørensen, Anders
Formålet med analysen er at udnytte lande- og brancheforskelle i automation, produktivitet og
beskæftigelse til at afklare i hvilken udstrækning automation påvirker produktivitet og beskæftigelse.
Detaljer omkring analysen findes i: ”Automation, labor productivity and employment – a cross country
comparison”. Et hovedresultat er, at arbejdsproduktiviteten i fremstillingssektoren i Danmark kan forøges
med ca. 15%, hvis de enkelte brancher indenfor fremstillingssektoren udnytter automation i samme
udstrækning, som i de lande, der er mest automatiserede. Det vil på kort sigt også betyde, at
beskæftigelsen tendere mod at falde med 7%, men til gengæld vil den vokse med 5% på længere sigt.
2013-01-30T00:00:00ZThe First EncounterBjørn Vedel, Janehttp://hdl.handle.net/10398/85612012-11-12T16:13:27Z2012-11-12T00:00:00ZThe First Encounter
Bjørn Vedel, Jane
In
recent
years,
research
collaboration
between
academic
and
corporate
scientists
has
become
a
matter
of
concern
for
policy
makers
as
well
as
research
managers
in
academia
and
industry.
Often,
both
in
public
research
policies
and
in
university
and
company
strategies,
science-industry
collaboration
has
been
presented
as
a
catalyst
for
advancing
science
for
the
benefit
of
society
as
well
as
for
the
involved
collaborators.
The
same
policies
and
strategies,
however,
often
emphasize
that
science-industry
collaboration
is
difficult
and
demanding
due
to
inherent
and
often
incommensurable
differences
between
the
respective
goals
and
processes
of
academia
and
industry.
2012-11-12T00:00:00Z