Contentious Knowledge

1. Contentious Knowledge Science, Social Science and Social Movements

2. Contentious Knowledge Team

3. 2006-09 Contentious Knowledge Team Members Ronald Herring (Government) Kenneth M. Roberts (Government) Maria Cook (ILR - International & Comparative Labor) Jason Frank (Government) DurbaGhosh (History)Rebecca Givan (ILR - Collective Bargaining) Stephen Hilgartner (Science and Technology Studies)Tom Medvetz (UC San Diego - Sociology)Kyoko Sato (Harvard – Sociology)Sarah A. Soule (Stanford - Graduate School of Business) Susan Spronk (University of Ottawa – International Development and Global Studies) Janice Thies (Crop and Soil Sciences)

4. Our Starting Point SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE AUTHORITATIVE KNOWLEDGE POLICY SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

8. Presentation Overview

9. Our Model of Knowledge and Policy-making Processes

10. Our Starting Point SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE AUTHORITATIVE KNOWLEDGE POLICY SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

11. Knowledge and Policy Making ENGAGED SOCIAL ACTORS Policy Making Process Policy Making Process Policy X Institutional Outcome Policy A Policy Y B AK Trajectory Counter-AK Trajectory KNOWLEDGE MAKING PROCESS Considered C D AK CLAIMS COUNTER CLAIMS

12. Our Model of Knowledge and Policy-making Processes Knowledge-Making Process Think Tanks Scientists Social Movements Business Groups Interest Groups

13. Politics of Knowledge Making

14. Our Model of Knowledge and Policy-making Processes Knowledge-Making Process Think Tanks Scientists Social Movements Business Groups Interest Groups

15. Our Model of Knowledge and Policy-making Processes Knowledge-Making Process Think Tanks Scientists Social Movements Business Groups Interest Groups

16. AUTHORITATIVE KNOWLEDGE COUNTER-CLAIMS TO AUTHORITATIVE KNOWLEDGE KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS (e.g. Anthropogenic Climate Change) Knowledge-Making Process Think Tanks Scientists Social Movements Social Movements Business Groups Interest Groups

17. AK CLAIMS COUNTER-AK CLAIMS AK Policy Trajectory Counter-AK Policy Traj. KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS (e.g. Anthropogenic Climate Change) Knowledge-Making Process Think Tanks Scientists Social Movements Business Groups Interest Groups

18. AK CLAIMS COUNTER-AK CLAIMS AK Policy Trajectory Counter-AK Policy Traj. KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS (e.g. Anthropogenic Climate Change) Knowledge-Making Process Think Tanks Scientists Social Movements Business Groups Interest Groups

19. AK CLAIMS COUNTER-AK CLAIMS AK Policy Trajectory Counter-AK Policy Traj. KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS (e.g. Anthropogenic Climate Change) Knowledge-Making Process Think Tanks Scientists Social Movements Business Groups Interest Groups

20. AK CLAIMS COUNTER-AK CLAIMS AK Policy Trajectory Counter-AK Policy Traj. KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS (e.g. Anthropogenic Climate Change) Knowledge Making Process Think Tanks Scientists Social Movements Business Groups Interest Groups

21. ENGAGED SOCIAL ACTORS AK CLAIMS COUNTER-AK CLAIMS AK Policy Trajectory Counter-AK Policy Traj. KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS (e.g. Anthropogenic Climate Change)

22. ENGAGED SOCIAL ACTORS Policy Making Process Policy Making Process Policy X Institutional Outcome Policy A Policy Y B AK Trajectory Counter-AK Policy Traj. Considered C D AK CLAIMS COUNTER CLAIMS

23. Knowledge and Policy Making ENGAGED SOCIAL ACTORS Policy Making Process Policy Making Process Policy X Institutional Outcome Policy A Policy Y B AK Trajectory Counter-AK Policy Traj. KNOWLEDGE MAKING PROCESS Considered C D AK CLAIMS COUNTER CLAIMS

24. Think Tanks

28. Social Movements

29. Social Movements • Workshop on Contentious Knowledge & the Diffusion of Social Protest November 9-10, 2007 423 ILR Conference Center, Cornell University • The Diffusion of Social Movements: Actors, Frames, and Political Effects. RebeccaKolinsGivan, Kenneth Roberts and Sarah Soule, Eds. Forthcoming, Cambridge University Press.

30. The Diffusion of Social Movements: Actors, Frames Table of Contents Part I: Diffusion and the Framing of Contentious Politics Part II: Mechanisms of Diffusion Part III: Diffusion, Scale Shift, and Organizational Change

31. Biotechnology

32. Puzzle: A Persistent Global Cognitive Rift on Biotechnology

33. http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2008/05/global_famine.htmlhttp://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2008/05/global_famine.html Moralists of the world - unite! Global Famine With the widespread adoption of GMO seeds, a major transition has occurred in the structure and history of settled agriculture since its inception 10,000 years ago. … This destructive pattern – invariably resulting in famine – is replicated in country after country leading to the Worldwide demise of the peasant economy. - Michel Chossudovsky Global Research, May 2, 2008

36. Global Diffusion of Transgenic Crops, by Area: 1996-2007

37. Reciprocal Diffusion of GMO-Free Zones (Europe)

38. GMO-free Zones: Europe 2007

39. GMO-free Zones: Europe 2009

41. A Contentious-Knowledge Take on the Dialectical Diffusion Puzzle • Steep technology diffusion curve explicable • Material-interest-based market ties among agriculturalists • Permeable state-surveillance and control => stealth seeds globally • Effective ideational opposition less self-evident • Cartagena Protocol [2000/2003] on bio-safety enables choke points in every nation • Epistemic brokers mediate authoritative knowledge • TANs supply authoritative risk narratives/data • NGOs supply confirming risk narratives/data

42. Epistemic Brokers as Hinges between Networks: The Case of Bt Cotton in India Transnational Advocacy Network Affiliated NGO Networks Truth Claims Monsanto’s Terminator Gene; MNC Patents Canadian website [RAFI] Prince Charles: “I blame GM crops for farmer suicides in India” October 2008 Truth Claims Epistemic Brokers CSA, DDS, Navdanya Bt Cotton Disasters Dead Sheep, Suicides Local NGO Projects/Mvts [CROPS Jangaon]

43. Biotechnology and Development CSS 494/GOVT 430 Spring 2008 M 1:25 - 4:25 pm Myron Taylor Hall Seminar Room 4 credits Professors: Ron Herring and Janice Thies rjh5@cornell.edu; jet25@cornell.edu

44. The Washington Consensus and Social Protest in Latin America

45. What Was the Washington Consensus? • Package of free market reforms— trade liberalization, privatization, liberalization of capital and labor markets, etc. • Policy response to the Latin American debt crisis of the 1980’s

46. Market Reform in Latin America

47. What Made it Authoritative Knowledge? • Grounded in neoclassical economic theory (especially the monetarist orthodoxy of the Chicago school) • Strong support (and pressure) from U.S. government and international financial institutions (IMF, World Bank, private banks, etc.) • Policy design and implementation by Latin American “technocrats” (experts with post-graduate training in neoclassical economics in the U.S.), often under the purview of the IMF

48. Social Sciences as Source of Authoritative Knowledge • Highly contested or inconclusive empirical claims • “Bundling” of empirical claims in larger bodies of knowledge with normative or ideological underpinnings

49. Central Empirical Claims of Neoclassical Economics • Markets are the most efficient mechanism to allocate scarce assets and resources • State intervention distorts market signals and creates economic inefficiency

50. “Not only have individual financial institutions become less vulnerable to shocks from underlying risk factors, but also the financial system as a whole has become more resilient.” — Alan Greenspan in 2004