Disentangling Science from Actionable Knowledge

 

Mercier, O. R. (2007). Indigenous knowledge and science. A new representation of the interface between indigenous and Eurocentric ways of knowing. He Pukenga Körero: A Journal of Mäori Studies, 8(2)

Maori physicist Dr. Ocean Ripeka Mercier's conceptual reframing of the interface where a plurality of knowledge systems must come together to collaborate, co-create, and co-design - as seen in the figure above - disentangles Science from the rest of Knowledge, thereby liberating all the other knowledges we make from being held up to the standards of the "physics paradigm of science" (Mercier 2007). 

Importantly, this framing liberates design knowledge (Manzini 2009) - that which is made by user researchers, UX specialists, participatory and codesign initiatives (among others) - from being held up to the same metrics of quality as that imposed by the positivist paradigm of the hard (natural) sciences such as physics. Mercier (2007) further distinguishes between Western/European knowledge systems and the rest of the world's own knowledge systems. She acknowledges that "indigenous" is a monolithic label for the technicoloured pluriverse of knowledges, each indigenous to its own locality and peoples but it does help simplify visualizing this conceptual model of hers as an epistemic tool.

Why would we need to liberate the fruits of UX research (for example) from being judged by the same metrics as a doctoral thesis in physics or mathematics? Until I saw Mercier's conceptual reframing of the interface where knowledge is co-created and realized the implications of the quadrants, I would not have been able to write the question above. However, once written down it makes it obvious that its not a question that needed to be asked. Why should the knowledge you make to help you codesign a healthcare app for elderly rural residents be held up to the rigid criteria of pure science? Far better answers than I could write are easily available from Helga Nowotny, who conceived the notion of 'socially-robust knowledge' - far more resonant with service design knowledge-making for practical and useful outcomes for society.

Yet, if I had not asked it, the question would never have been formulated at all. And, that's the favour Dr Mercier has done for us, putting a spotlight on what knowledge is being made and for what purpose.