Journal Article

Speaking evidence to power? An interdisciplinary conversation

Feigenbaum, Anna, Kanngieser, A M, Iqani, Mehita, McGoey, Linsey, Dunlap, Alexander, Monroe-White, Thema, Asmal, Laila

2024

Overview

Iqani et al discuss a roundtable discussion about how evidence is produced in different academic disciplines and how it intersects with power. The conversation focuses on how different disciplines define and use evidence. For instance, psychiatry emphasizes systematic methodologies and hypothesis testing, while sociology explores how evidence is produced and used for political ends. There's a tension between quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data (like large datasets) is often seen as more objective, but it might not capture the complexities of lived experiences. Qualitative data (like interviews) can provide richer details but might be subjective. Researchers from low- and middle-income countries often struggle to get funding and have their work published in high-impact journals dominated by Western researchers. The conversation acknowledges the limitations of speaking truth to power. Powerful actors might not be swayed by evidence, and achieving change might require compromise and optimistic language.

• Publisher: Academy of Science of South Africa
• Subject: Artificial intelligence / Big Data / Climate change / Data analysis / Datasets / Epistemology / Ethnography / Hypotheses / Innovations / Interdisciplinary aspects / Knowledge / Political ecology / Political power / Psychiatry / Qualitative analysis / Science / Seminars / Sociology / Verbal communication