Tamsen, I love this conversation. I've been thinking a lot about it and as I was unpacking my office again post-move, I came across a book I read during my PhD years in Science Studies — Rethinking Expertise by Harry Collins and Robert Evans. They make a distinction that feels almost custom-built for what you're describing: contributory expertise (an expertise that's developed over years of doing the work competently) versus the kind of expertise that gets recognized and validated by institutions. Your "farmers-and-cowmen split" is basically that tension exactly: someone can have deep, real, hard-won knowledge (the soil scientist's and the farmer's, to use an example that came to mind) without it ever being legible as "rigorous" by academic standards.
I think what I love most is that the book doesn't resolve the tension by picking a side. It takes both seriously: expertise is real and unevenly distributed, and it's still a social achievement, not some innate essence. Very aligned with your rigorless/rigor-ish/rigorous spectrum.
If you're up for a book club, I would be down to reread this with you. Honestly, I love how much your work is surfacing some great books from my past (including Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions)!
I like your explanation of positionality: good examples. Do you mind if I "borrow" it for my students? In my class "Introduction to Science", I try to explain the various positions a researcher can take.
I do find it useful, very much so. It is so difficult to find explanations that my first-year BA students can follow when it comes to science and research.
It's so important to make them understand that there is more than one position when it comes to research.
Tamsen, I love this conversation. I've been thinking a lot about it and as I was unpacking my office again post-move, I came across a book I read during my PhD years in Science Studies — Rethinking Expertise by Harry Collins and Robert Evans. They make a distinction that feels almost custom-built for what you're describing: contributory expertise (an expertise that's developed over years of doing the work competently) versus the kind of expertise that gets recognized and validated by institutions. Your "farmers-and-cowmen split" is basically that tension exactly: someone can have deep, real, hard-won knowledge (the soil scientist's and the farmer's, to use an example that came to mind) without it ever being legible as "rigorous" by academic standards.
I think what I love most is that the book doesn't resolve the tension by picking a side. It takes both seriously: expertise is real and unevenly distributed, and it's still a social achievement, not some innate essence. Very aligned with your rigorless/rigor-ish/rigorous spectrum.
If you're up for a book club, I would be down to reread this with you. Honestly, I love how much your work is surfacing some great books from my past (including Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions)!
I love the term rigorish, and can relate and see it in your book, The Red Thread
, that I just finished reading and found incredibly helpful. Thank you.
I like your explanation of positionality: good examples. Do you mind if I "borrow" it for my students? In my class "Introduction to Science", I try to explain the various positions a researcher can take.
Please go ahead! Delighted you find it useful!
I do find it useful, very much so. It is so difficult to find explanations that my first-year BA students can follow when it comes to science and research.
It's so important to make them understand that there is more than one position when it comes to research.
I am more of a constructionist by the way 😀