Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
'consciously': governance is deliberate and, ideally, reflexive. By what val-
ues, principles, measures and techniques do epistemic communities satisfy
themselves that 'good work' is being done, as well as 'innovative work' that
might break the existing mould? How rigorously do these communities hold
themselves to their shared standards, and how do they deal with diversity
and dissent within their ranks? Indeed, how effectively do these communi-
ties permit internal debate about what the standards
should
be, and about
what might
count
as 'good' and 'innovative work'? Over the past century,
the visual and performance arts have been especially good at breaking the
mould, and in the process challenging the wider society to examine its own
values and practices - but this is not so true elsewhere, and is that a good
thing?
Given the genre differences characteristic of various epistemic commu-
nities, how should any one of them deal with representations hailing
from other groups? What are their responsibilities to those who consume
or use their representations? These questions speak to the
quality
of self-
governance: its means and its ends. Because epistemic dependence is so
prevalent in the modern world, how well epistemic communities self-govern
is clearly a very important issue - even if it's one that most members of the
public might consider very arcane or dull.
16
It's important here to make a broad distinction between epistemic com-
munities who are not, in their professional activities, seeking to be partisan
and those who, for various reasons, are. For instance, we understand that
ENGOs (environmental non-governmental organisations) have 'agendas' in
ways that most university-based geologists do not. This does not, of course,
mean that some epistemic communities simply 'concoct' representations
that suit their (more or less narrow) interests - though they may well do so.
Nor does it mean they
necessarily
behave in nefarious or unprofessional ways
(though, again, sometimes their members may do so). But it does mean they
must - or should - consider the relationship between their modus operandi
and how their audiences perceive them. In some situations, if they're seen as
being unduly 'political', 'biased' and so on, then their ability to exert outside
influence may be compromised.
Turning now to the last of the three options, in cases where self-
governance is weakly entrenched, where a lot of taxpayers' money is
involved, or where the epistemic stakes are very high, governance arrange-
ments may involve
external regulation
. This is where an outside body is
charged, usually by a national government, with scrutinising and control-
ling the conduct of the members and institutions comprising one or more
epistemic communities. Together, regulatory bodies like these can have a
profound affect on the particular mixture of communities whose genre-
specific representations of the world become widely broadcast. In any given
society today, certain communities and their representations are relatively
invisible, for a variety of reasons. Others are the preserve of certain audi-
ences and addressees, either because they occupy a very specific niche or
