History of knowledge
Within academia, the history of knowledge is the field covering the accumulated and known human knowledge constructed or discovered during human history and its historic forms, focus, accumulation, bearers,[1] impacts, mediations, distribution, applications, societal contexts, conditions[2] and methods of production.
[4] The discipline emerged in the 2000s as a response to the digital age and was formally recognised with the introduction of academic institutions such as Geschichte des Wissens.
[6] Research approaches are based on the theories of Michel Foucault with concepts like "orders of knowledge" and are similar to other fields with the use of social, cultural and political frameworks.
[7] The formation of the discipline has roots in the 1950s history of science field and contemporary concepts can be identified in works that go back to the 15th century.
[10] Peter Burke is listed among some of the canon authors in the field alongside Martin Mulsow, Pierre Bourdieu and Michel Foucault.
[10] The book identifies the 15th century "Advancement of Learning" in which Francis Bacon writes on the circulation of knowledge.
[4] George Sarton, in the early years of the 20th century, advocated for a new practice to study the progress on the scientific and foresaw humanities use to science.
[13] Topics can range from medical recipes written by women, 18th century crop failures to the history of American "wisdom" such as pop psychology.
[15] Knowledge is a formative concept to the field, however, its definition from Wissensgechichte academics is, as Suzanne Marchand writes, "inconsistent".
[13] The definitions of knowledge that are used diverge and interdisciplinary measures from areas like epistemology are used in order to provide a clearer notion.
[9] Relative to the topic, it has been pointed out that knowledge as a concept risks becoming progressively vague and unable for the use of analysis.
[16] Theories, approaches and concepts have been used to study the history of knowledge and allow researchers to uncover small-scale understandings that are then connected to a wider context.
[10] The conception follows closely to Peter Burke's definition of knowledge as a "cooked" form that is transformed from "raw" information.
[10] Similarly the methods of objectivity, demonstration, error and belief are derived from traditional scientific methodologies and applied in the research of history.
[14] These areas are studied in order to examine the social and political structures whilst also extending the research past these dominant pure aspects.
[12] The history of knowledge has long been criticized for being “eccentric” yet it has steadfastly grown since its conception as a historical profession.
[19] Scholars have contributed to the growth of knowledge within the field whilst also demonstrating its values and weaknesses as a branch of study.
[3] The history of knowledge's subject matter is undefined and critics contend the field's vague scope.
[19] Simone Lassig also declares that the profession's expansive view is better equipped to study forgotten knowledge in the past whilst also reminding historians of the open-endedness of history.
[13] The debates towards opting history of knowledge argue it's because of the field's lack of reliance on the “Western” concept.
[10] Philipp Sarasin, in opposition, notes that the theory used in the history of knowledge encourages a post-colonial outlook.
