Postmodernism and democratizing knowledge

I audibly groaned when my mentor suggested I really ought to read Foucaults Archaeology of knowledge for my independent project to better understand the movement to democratize knowledge. Sure, I agreed, its important to understand the postmodern perspective. Yes, for this particular topic postmodern challenges are especially relevant, since they include questions about what is valid knowledge, the value and purpose of knowledge, whether it is discovered or socially constructed and, subsequently, whether it should be deconstructed to reveal limitations and biases (Shapiro and Bentz, 1998, p. 25).

It was by revisiting an article by Kezar (2004) that convinced me of the importance of wrestling with philosophy and the original texts, not an interpretation to improve scholarship in higher education. I am, after all, pursuing a doctorate in philosophy and Kezar, too, recommends Foucaults Archaeology of knowledge.

Still, Foucault has always seemed removed from my world as a librarian and association manager. Truth be told, Id never really invested in understanding his writing, having successfully avoided Foucault for two decades since I was first exposed to him as an undergrad. But given my topic area on the democratization of knowledge, how could I ignore him any longer? So I used my furlough week to dig in and read a little bit, day by day. It was slow going, and I dont feel at all confident that I really understand what I could/should, but for now its enough. Below Im presenting just a few ideas that resonated with me, along with some questions and thoughts they raise in my mind. (Note: Citations to Foucault, Michel (1972). Archaeology of knowledge. Pantheon Books, NY.) Id love to know what you think.

Foucault describes his method of "archeological analysis", saying it is much "more willing than the history of ideas to speak of discontinuities, ruptures, gaps, entirely new forms of positivity and of sudden redistributions" (1972, p. 169). In what ways is the movement to democratize knowledge disruptive? How does it interrupt traditional notions about learning, communicating, and authority?

"The history of ideas usually credits the discourse that it analyses with coherence. If it happens to notice an irregularity in the use of words, several incompatible propositions, a set of meanings that do not adjust to one another, concepts that cannot be systematized together, then it regards as its duty to find, at a deeper level, a principle of cohesion that organizes the discourse and restores to it its hidden unity." (Foucault, 1972, p. 149) Some proponents of open access would say, in response to faculty concerns, that we are only asking you to share your research results differently, not seeking to change anything about how you do your research. One could see this as nave, at best, or even disingenuous. Certainly open access is about removing price barriers and access barriers so that anyone can read research results. But some definitions also stipulate removing permission barriers so that others can reuse and create derivative works. Then there is the movement for open data. Opening knowledge this way allows it to be deconstructed and recreated potentially very unsettling.

Foucaults archaeology seeks to "untie all those knots that historians have patiently tied, it increases differences, blurs the lines of communication, and tries to make it more difficult to pass from one thing to another" (1972, p. 170). How is democratization of knowledge not at all coherent with past practice of teaching/scholarship? What normative/universal categories does the movement threaten? A few possibilities: faculty as power elites, authority as conferred through academic credentials, the sanctity of scholarly peer opinion, scholarship = the discovery of new knowledge. Do we fully acknowledge the differences and difficulties? Or do we dismiss/downplay in an effort to create a narrative about coherent transition to a digital world?

For archaeological analysis, contradictions are neither appearances to be overcome, nor secret principles to be uncovered. They are objects to be described for themselves, without any attempt being made to discover from what point of view they can be dissipated. (Foucault, 1972, p. 151). These notions of recognizing and describing contradictions (instead of minimizing and downplaying) harkens back to my previous reading on wisdom. Wisdom is defined by some psychologists as the ability to accept ambiguity, tolerate contradictions, and not seek easy either/or solutions. But there I go - seeking coherence between Foucault and the psychology of wisdom!

Well, I feel like I only "got" the tip of the Foucault iceberg. What else does he have to say that bears special consideration for those working to democratize knowledge? What other postmodern challenges and confusions should be examined? Are proponents of this movement giving due consideration to postmodern questions?

References:
Bentz, Valerie & Shapiro, Jeremy (1998). Mindful Inquiry in Social  Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Kezar, Adrianna (2004). "Wrestling with philosophy: Improving scholarship in higher education" Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 75, No. 1