| dc.description.abstract | In a position paper, published last year, leading men of initiative Science in Transition voice their opinions on the current state of the scientific system in The Netherlands. Changes that have been occurring, since the seventeenth century, they argue, in the relation between Science and Society have had a significant effect on the university. The organization, financing, and responsibility of the scientific enterprise have become more problematic. One should ask him- or herself, the writers argue, whether or not the enterprise is still organized to our satisfaction. Similar voices have been heard in Italy; students have been taking to the streets to protest university reforms and government spending. In light of the 2015 Milan Expo, a large amount of citizens seems to have grown dissatisfied with government spending as the amount of money spent on the Expo could have been used to improve student housing, university buildings and general living conditions in Italy.
One could argue that the systems of education have become closed communities: efficiently - yet not necessarily optimally- working machines with inputs and outputs that are acceptable but not, necessarily, desirable networks of various actors: teachers, students, researchers, curriculum, universities and technology that construct their own facts and leave little room for actual progress or change. I would like to argue that to be able to analyse the inner-workings of the university, we should try and open the, what could be considered, black boxes of education. I have, therefore, used a sociological approach similar to the ones employed by Sharon Traweek and Bruno Latour in their research of scientific communities. I have conducted comparative research into History and Philosophy of Science education at the Universities of Bologna and Utrecht and have analysed the respective faculties’ workplace, the staff’s and students’ use of technology and the available libraries, university museums and research facilities. I have, furthermore, observed and analysed the routine exchanges, meetings, and gestures between students and university staff and the way in which these minutiae are constitutive of the way in which knowledge is transferred. I have found that, even though, the minutiae might seem unimportant they are, in fact, helpful in analysing the inner workings of a university system and the ways in which it produces knowledge. | |
