Search Results

Starting with a critical reading of the promise of Quinean naturalized epistemology for feminist and other post-colonial theories of knowledge, this chapter instead proposes an ecological naturalism centred on a conception of the natural and of natural knowledge-making derived from the science of ecology. For Quinean naturalism, laboratory-based cognitive science is the place to study how human beings “naturally” know; yet its promise is vitiated by the artificiality of its regulative conception of “the natural”. Its reliance on a residual positivist-empiricism blocks its capacity to relinquish the epistemological imaginary of mastery and control, to engage with specific, diverse human knowings, and to address the politics of knowledge. Although ecological science counts as a “weak” science by orthodox positivist standards (following Kristin Schrader-Frechette and Sharon Kingsland), this so-called weakness becomes a strength in the enhanced capacity it offers to know interpretively, non-reductively, and responsibly.

Recent research has furthered our understanding of mobilizing research knowledge into practice with a focus on appropriate ways for health organizations to address the “knowledge gap.” This chapter examines how knowledge mobilization is performed in inter-organizational healthcare networks, and how different stakeholders work together to achieve a balance between research knowledge production and implementation in three different network initiatives. In particular, it explores how network ambidexterity—the balance between exploration and exploitation—is achieved to facilitate knowledge mobilization. The findings reveal four key challenges common across the case studies: managing and engaging stakeholders, managing appropriate funding strategies, managing competing priorities, and the politics of knowledge in innovation. The chapter reveals how network ambidexterity is developed differently across each inter-organizational initiative in light of these challenges and contribute to the literature by developing a classification of ambidexterity in inter-organizational networks that may prove useful in illuminating knowledge mobilization practices.

The conclusion reviews the book’s central arguments, describing the growth of racial individualism in the two decades after WWII and pointing to the intersecting dynamicsthat aided this paradigm’s postwar development. Systemic and relational frameworks did compete against individualistic views on the race issue, the conclusion simultaneously makes clear. Theoretical challenges to racial individualism emerged not only from political radicals but also from African American-led intellectual spaces such as Fisk University’s Race Relations Institutes and Howard University’s Journal of Negro Education. Linking social science and social action proved complicated across the segregated postwar academy In the late 1940s and 1950s, many antiracist scholar-activists supported systemic and relational theories of the race issue while dismissing the reformist implications of these theories as impractical or unrealistic. By the mid 1960s the tide would turn. In these years, both theoretical and reformist alternatives to racial individualism regained a central place in debates on the race issue among many mainstream social scientists and civil rights activists. Still, racial individualism’s ongoing impact remained evident in the late twentieth century rise of colorblindness and the utility to opponents of school desegregation of the assumption that the only true racial harms are intentional.

By focusing on the colonial origins and practice of Philippine archival collection in the American museum and university, this chapter reinvigorates scholarly debates in Marxist and post-Marxist theory over the primacy of economic versus colonial processes in the critique of capitalist accumulation. The chapter introduces the concepts of “knowledge nullius” and “accumulating the primitive” in order to underscore the epistemological and aesthetic dimensions of colonial, capitalist accumulation and to call attention to scholars and artists of color who have called for anti-accumulative theories and practices of knowledge production.

The Conclusion accounts for the fate of the women whose ideas are examined in this book, and takes stock of the legacies of their sexological work. It further lays out the benefits of pursuing a larger twentieth century history of women’s sexological work, one that is international in its scope and grapples with the rupture in female sexual knowledge production affected by the Second World War and its geopolitical realignments, the reshuffling of the ideological landscapes after 1945, and the rise of new social movements in the 1960s. Finally, the Conclusion argues that the history of women’s sexological work is especially significant at this particular moment in time, as twenty-first century feminist theorists positively embrace science and nature as intellectual and rhetorical resources once again.

In this chapter we examine the construction of political racelessness (Goldberg 2006) in Europe and how it is reproduced and legitimised in ways that violently erase and exclude minority women and their interests from the European polity. We begin this chapter with a discussion of why political racelessness is a central feature of postcolonial amnesia in Europe. We move on to discuss how political racelessness is achieved and defended in Europe through the cultivation of ‘white ignorance’ and ‘white innocence’ (Mills 2007; Wekker 2016). We then turn to examine how the white European left—despite a long tradition of anti-racist and anti-fascist resistance—perpetuates political racelessness at the expense of minority groups and minority women in particular. We conclude with a discussion about how we might theorise minority women’s activism in a context of white ignorance in Europe.

The Epilogue returns to the politics of knowledge about cutting that disavows its endings – not only in Ghana, but across the African continent and in the global North. Having shown that debates about knowledge have practical consequences, I point to the scholarly and political work that lies ahead.

The chapter reconstructs a narrative of health services development in post-Independence India by examining relationships of the state, community, and Primary Health Care approach through existing literature. It combines materialist explanations with analyses of bureaucratic power and cultural hegemony to explain the maldistribution of health care. It argues that a critical analysis of the bio-politics and political economy of health care over the past century must consider five ‘missing links’ in the dominant discourse of HSD policy, that is, the unaffordability of the Euro-American institutional model of over-medicalized health care; the validity of plurality of knowledge; the dominant culture and ethics of health care providers; the prevalent physical, social and cultural iatrogenesis; and complexity of ‘the community’.