Universities in the Knowledge Economy: Perspectives from Asia-Pacific and Europe Auckland, 10 – 13 February 2015 “This is only academic knowledge.” The role of academic knowledge in the knowledge society Pavel Zgaga University of Ljubljana

Contents 1. Introduction: Academic knowledge in the age of the “knowledge society”: "This is only academic knowledge.” 2. Case 1 (Slovenia): “How to become a hatchery of money and not merely academic centre?” 3. Case 2 (Italy): L’Aquila earthquake (2009) and a trial against a group of seismologists 4. Conclusion

“Knowledge society”: Different definitions and uses of this term raise a number of questions. E.g.: What consequences it brings for “traditional” (pre-knowledge society) forms of knowledge? In the age of the "knowledge society", the concept of “academic knowledge” got a different accent. E.g.: "This is only academic knowledge.” Did “knowledge for the sake of knowledge” become edangered species in the “knowledge society”?

not merely academic centre “The aim of the Institute is, therefore, to become a hatchery of money and not merely academic centre.”

Case 1: “How to become a truly knowledge-based society? Is knowledge only theoretical knowledge and service knowledge? Can we survive only with the philosophy and civic education? Is technical knowledge and technological development also important for the development of our society? [...] The knowledge society is thus not just a philosophy, but also technology.” How to become a truly knowledge-based society? E-Koper (27/01/2015)

A “common sense” interpretation of the concept of “knowledge society”. Idiosyncratic coalition of “theoretical knowledge” and “service knowledge” opposed to “technical knowledge”: the context of Central European societies in transition. Technological knowledge supports “hatcheries of money”; therefore, it is the key to the “truly knowledge–based society”. Dialectics of the concept of the “knowledge society”: an idea which alienates its original image through its subsequent transformations and establishes itself as its opposite.

L'Aquila, 2009

Case 2: “If the scientific community is to be penalised for making predictions that turn out to be incorrect, or for not accurately predicting an event that subsequently occurs, then scientific endeavour will be restricted to certainties only, and the benefits that are associated with findings, from medicine to physics, will be stalled. [...] It is worth pointing out that many of the valuable contributions made by scientists such as penicillin, radiobiology and the like have stemmed from the enquiring mind rather than absolute certainty of success.” M. Sperrin, physicist, The Huffington Post, 22/10/2012

“Predicting earthquakes is currently not possible. And for a long time we can’t expect to be developed to such a degree that evacuation of people and solving people's lives will be carried out on the basis of forecasts. If we proved calls for evacuation on the basis of a slight increase in the risk, only one evacuation out of hundred would be justified. The question is, of course, how long the public would tolerate such forecasts and how long people would wait to start an action for damages due to lost revenue.” A Gosar, seismologist, Mladina, 14/11/2014

The trial: mixing diverse nature of “theoretical knowledge” and “useful knowledge”. – Predicting earthquakes is not the same as weather forecasting. “Useful knowledge” – characterized by a high degree of reliability; in the knowledge society, this kind of knowledge drives economy and “money hatcheries”. “Useful knowledge” – a scientific endeavour which is “restricted to certainties only” (Sperrin). However, the key condition of scientific success and progress of civilization is “the inquiring mind rather than absolute certainty of success” (Sperrin): a challenge of unknown, uncertain, “risky” in academic terms.

Theoretical (academic) and practical (useful) knowledge are not necessarily exclusive forms of knowledge. They are just two of the forms of knowledge; two of several possible rationalities and epistemologies. The problem we face today is the creation of a hierarchical relationship and opposition between “useful” and “only academic” knowledge as well as ranking of “higher” and “lower” knowledge worlds. It is necessary to re-theorize and re-conceptualize the idea of the“knowledge society” – including criticism of its normative and ideological dimensions.