Send message to Author

Short abstract:

This paper problematizes ideals and enactments of curiosity in research and the silence and outspoken rules in knowledge producing environments via auto-censorship. How such auto-censorship and curiosity negotiated, and the possible effects, is discussed via 90 interviews with researchers from STEM.

Long abstract:

The aim of this paper is to problematize the ideals and enactments of curiosity in research and the silence and outspoken rules in knowledge producing environments via auto-censorship. In spaces with humans, cultural bound rules, and regulations regarding both research practices within academia are articulated and made visible. Such a phenomenon as autocensura is practiced by researchers who are working in various disciplines and in various political contexts (not only under authoritarian regimes), as commented by Wagner (Wagner, 2022). They may withhold knowledge that might produce transformations, and thus revive questions regarding knowledge production, roles, and commitments, for the research community and society. Academic practices are also intertwined with everyday practices and private life, which regulates and affects academic work but is unspoken. Curiosity can be presented as an expression of positive expectation or as a reason to commit action that appears as the central driving force for learning and invention. It forms an anticipation for information in the individual, and from cultural expectations imposed by the group or society at large. How is auto-censorship and the curiosity negotiated? What are the purposes and possible effects?

The paper includes a discussion on how scientists from three different STEM fields deal with cultural and contextualized norms of such interaction, and how it affects their knowledge practice The paper is based on 90 interviews with scholars from Sweden and the United States STEM field, analyzed through theoretical concepts of cultural analysis, thought style, symbolic capital and knowledge.