Knowledge Transfer Economies by Jara Rocha
Temporality is key when it comes to understanding and grasping the forms of knowledge that are relevant at each specific moment. As such, the research group should formulate questions in regard to the frequency and durability of these forms: - How frequently we consider reforming transfer methods and object?
Transformations can also take place at the level of recognition and legitimacy: - What are the implications of configuring a particular form of knowledge around an idea of legitimisation or delegitimisation?
Other key aspects include the dimensions of the epistemic zones, and the scales that should be used to approach them. - What remodelling mechanisms are included in a knowledge-generation project? How can we facilitate re-scaling between macro and micro zones?
Even when dimensions remain unchanged, processes of distortion may arise, so it becomes necessary to design strategies to account for them, possibly in advance, but also retroactively. For example, “track changes” in an example of a tool that keeps tabs on distortions in an onto-epistemic body. What are the motives by which each project/process accounts for its own distortions and/or the distortions of its environment?
In recent times (perhaps due to the proliferation of certain specific methods and/or tools), we have witnessed a rise in the practice of forking in knowledge-generation projects. While this can be a very useful, decisive practice in high-conflict moments, at other times it neglects the power of transformation, which can include a process of decision-making to bring about change, without going as far as a split.
Lastly, we should consider a type of transformation that takes place when knowledge is published/made explicit/released: dissemination/dispersal/information.
-Regardless of the duration, legitimacies, scales, and changes in an epistemic zone, are its means of dissemination necessarily a transformation (because of the interpretations or adaptations that take place after its dissemination)? What should be embedded in the zone, in order to facilitate, challenge, or prevent this phenomenon from occurring?
The key to understanding that knowledge is generated “on the go”, in progress, lies in accepting the process-based nature of the constitutive phenomenon of all the agents involved in the process. In identity terms, constitutive processes are the core aspect of performativity: a web of performativity develops around the identity constitutions of the agents involved. Nonetheless, this is all pointless unless there is a detailed understanding of the mechanisms and tools for negotiating these constitutive processes, and their scales of existence/affectation. So then: how do agents perform their transfers? how can this flow be perceived, up close and from afar? And, at the zoom-out scale: what transfer intersections take place, and how are the identity forms of different agents reconstituted?
In regard to the reconstitution of identity, or better still, in regard to the ongoing constitution of identity (the central aspect of performativity), there is no point in imagining clean, conscious flows. We should however consider the degrees to which the intersections are distorted, and the extent and power of promiscuous practices in an economy of based on thinking while doing in/with others.
This brings up the issue of ethics in relation to the economy of “on the go” or performative transfer: how do agents adhere to compliance with a set of gestures that are explicitly or implicitly (ideologically or hegemonically) imposed? Or how are they swept along by their path-dependence in their own thinking-learning performativity? Or, from the other perspective: how do they perpetrate disruptions or turns in this path by means of gestures that are not contemplated, inappropriate, or non-appropriable? How can we then account for compliance with and/or performative perpetration in a processual economy? What is the direction of these gestures in regard to the set of epistemic zones? Do agents voluntarily place themselves in centripetal or centrifugal channels, which move them towards the centre of pre-established ideas, or towards the margins of that which is understood?
And does performative ALWAYS mean processual? Is there room for stillness, or for “negative performativity”? Does it make sense to promote this in certain cases, in a quest for a kind of crystallisation of the system? Is this sustainable? On a scale of intelligibility of minimum objectives, is the non-transfer of new knowledge useful? Would it lead to a state of “continuing to know what we already know”?
At a certain point in the process, is there room for retroactive gestures? What about proactive gestures?
Instituting competencies are directly embedded in the conditions of possibility, but at a performative level. They refer to the capacity of each agent to form part of a transfer; in other words, they refer to “what an agent can do”.
There is a crucial characteristic: latency
openness language sustainability / durability
political conditions: autonomy / dependence / sovereignty / tyranny
Mediation – Translation
changes of scale symmetry of agents roughness/noise
magnetisation-catalysation vs. problematisation
monitoring facilitation generation archive