ASTK18487U Knowledge (elective)
Full-degree students enrolled at the Department of Political Science, UCPH
- MSc in Political Science
- MSc in Social Science
- MSc in Security Risk Management
- Bachelor in Political Science
Full-degree students enrolled at the Faculty of Social Science, UCPH
- Bachelor and Master Programmes in Anthropology
- Bachelor and Master Programmes in Psychology
- Master Programme in Social Data Science
The course is open to:
- Exchange and Guest students from abroad
- Credit students from Danish Universities
- Open University students
Rankings shape university funding. Indicators determine which states are labelled ‘fragile’. Randomised experiments decide which social programmes survive. In contemporary governance, knowledge does not merely inform politics, it helps organise and structure it.
This course examines how knowledge is produced, authorised, contested, and mobilised in politics and public policy. Rather than taking ‘evidence’ or ‘expertise’ for granted, the course asks: Who defines what counts as valid knowledge? How do practices such as quantification, classification, benchmarking, experimentation, and narrative shape political reality? When does knowledge empower – and when does it silence?
Drawing on science and technology studies (STS), sociology of science, and political theory, the course introduces key debates about how knowledge is defined and legitimised. We examine scientific paradigms and the boundary between science and pseudoscience, the role of experts and epistemic communities, the politics of indicators and global benchmarking, hierarchies of evidence, strategic ignorance, and the role of positionality and emancipatory knowledge. Students engage with both classical and contemporary texts and apply these perspectives to empirical cases from public policy and global governance.
The course progresses from foundational debates about the nature
and authority of science to contemporary challenges such as
post-truth politics, data-driven governance, and knowledge in the
Anthropocene. Throughout, students develop analytical tools to
assess how knowledge practices shape institutions, policy
priorities, and distributions of power.
|
Knowledge:
- Identify, summarise, and differentiate between key theories of knowledge and the sociology of knowledge.
- Analyse the production, legitimisation, and mobilisation of different forms of knowledge in political and policy contexts.
- Describe and evaluate the role of actors, institutions, and epistemic practices in shaping the authority and use of knowledge.
- Explain historical and contemporary developments in knowledge production in areas such as science, politics, and public policy.
Skills:
- Compare and evaluate different knowledge production practices (e.g. quantification, classification, experimentation, benchmarking).
- Engage in theory-informed debate about expertise, evidence, and the politics of knowledge.
- Analyse the implications of different epistemic assumptions for policy and governance.
- Communicate complex arguments concerning the relationship between knowledge and power
Competences:
- Reflect critically on the normative and political implications of different modes of knowledge production and use.
- Assess the strengths and limitations of competing claims to expertise and evidence.
- Apply theories of knowledge to empirical cases beyond those discussed in class.
- Plan and complete an independent written analysis grounded in course literature.
The following is an indicative list of key readings associated with the course:
- Resnik, D.B. (2000) ”A pragmatic approach to the demarcation problem”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 31(2), 249-267.
- Baumberger, C., Beisbart, C., and Brun, G. (2016) ”What is understanding? An overview of recent debates in epistemology and philosophy of science’ in S.R. Grimm, C. Baumberger, and S. Ammon (eds) Explaining Understanding: New Perspectives from Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, pp: 1-35.
- Sismondo, S (2008) “ Science and Technology Studies and an engaged program”, in Hackett et al, Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (3rd ed.), MIT Press, 13-31 (19 pp).
- Kuhn, T (1970/1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd/3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1-65 (65 pp)
- Collins, H & Evans, R (2002) “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience”. Social Studies of Science 32, 235-283 (49 pp)
- Haas, Peter M. 1992. “ Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination.” International Organization 46(1): 1–35 (35pp)
- Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H et al. (1994) The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies, LA and London: Sage Publications. 1-45 (45 pp)
- Etzkowitz H and Leydesdorff L (2000) ”The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations” Research Policy 29(2): 109-123 (15 pp)
- Jasanoff, S (2004) “ The idiom of co-production” & “ Ordering knowledge, Ordering society” In Jasanoff, S States of Knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. New York: Routledge: 1-45 (45 pp)
- Latour B (1995) ”Circulating Reference: Sampling the Soil in the Amazon Forest” in Pandora’s Hope, pp. 24-79 (56 pp)
- Porter, T (1994) “ Making Things Quantitative.” Science in Context 7, 389–407 (19 pp).
- Bowker, G and S Star (2000) “Introduction”, “Some tricks in the trade in Analysing Classification” and “Why Classifications Matter”, in Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences, Boston: MIT Press, 1-16, 33-50 and 319-326 (42 pp) ( library)
- Fougner, Tore. 2008. “ Neoliberal Governance of States: The Role of Competitiveness Indexing and Country Benchmarking.” Millennium 37(2): 303–26 (24 pp.)
- Sanín, Francisco Gutiérrez. 2010. “Evaluating State Performance: A Critical View of State Failure and Fragility Indexes.” European Journal of Development Research 23(1): 20–42 (23 pp).
- Dehue, Trudy. 2001. “ Establishing the Experimenting Society: The Historical Origin of Social Experimentation According to the Randomized Controlled Design.” American Journal of Psychology 114(2): 283–302 (20 pp).
- Guevara, Berit Bliesemann De. 2017. “ Intervention Theatre: Performance, Authenticity and Expert Knowledge in Politicians’ Travel to Post-/Conflict Spaces.” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 11(1): 58–80 (23 pp).
- Hopkin, Jonathan, and Ben Rosamond. 2018. “ Post-Truth Politics, Bullshit and Bad Ideas: ‘Deficit Fetishism’ in the UK.” New Political Economy 23(6): 641–655 (15 pp).
- Rodgers, Dennis, David Lewis, and Michael Woolcock. 2008. “ The Fiction of Development: Literary Representation as a Source of Authoritative Knowledge.” Journal of Development Studies 44 (2): 198–216 (19 pp).
- Goldenberg, M.J. (2006) “On evidence and evidence-based medicine: Lessons from the philosophy of science”, Social Science & Medicine, 62(11): 2621-2632.
- Longino, H. (1989) ”Feminist critiques of rationality: Critiques of science or philosophy of science?”, Women’s Studies International Forum, 12(3): 261-269.
- Martin, K. and Mirraboopa, B. (2003) ”Ways of knowing, being and doing: A theoretical framework and methods for indigenous and indigenist re-search”, Journal of Australian Studies, 76: 203-214.
- Knorr-Cetina, K (2001) “ Objectual Practice” Schatzki, T, K Knorr-Cetina, and E von Savigny, The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, London/New York: Routledge, 175–188 (14 pp)
- Claudio E. Benzecry and Monika Krause (2010) ” How Do they Know? Practicing Knowledge in Comparative Perspective” Qualitative Sociology 33(4): 415–422 (8 pp)
- Büger, C (2015) “ Making Things Known: Epistemic Practices, the United Nations, and the Translation of Piracy” International Political Sociology, 9, 1-18 (18 pp)
- Engle Merry, Sally. 2011. “ Measuring the World.” Current Anthropology 52(S3): S83–95 (13 pp).
One third of the way through the course, students will be divided into groups depending on the knowledge artefact they wish to examine as part of their first assignment. They will then identify and discuss relevant experts, knowledge and forums for knowledge production in their self-selected case study, and finally analyze a specific ‘epistemic object’. Two thirds of the way through the course, students will be divided into new groups depending on the topic they have chosen to investigate as part of their second assignment (a mini free-written assignment on a topic of their choice that pertains to knowledge).
- Category
- Hours
- Class Instruction
- 28
- Preparation
- 56
- Exercises
- 6
- Exam Preparation
- 16
- Exam
- 100
- Total
- 206
Students will receive individual written feedback on both of their ongoing assignments. They will also receive oral peer feedback on the drafts of their assignments when they participate in class peer review sessions.
Self Service at KUnet
When registered you will be signed up for exam.
- Full-degree students – sign up at Selfservice on KUnet
- Exchange and guest students from abroad – sign up through Mobility Online and Selfservice- read more through this website.
- Credit students from Danish universities - sign up through this website.
- Open University students - sign up through this website.
Please know that this course is not open to students who have previously enrolled in the Evaluation core courses.
The dates for the exams are found here Exams – Faculty of Social Sciences - University of Copenhagen (ku.dk)
Please note that it is your own responsibility to check for overlapping exam dates.
- Credit
- 7,5 ECTS
- Type of assessment
- Home assignmentHome assignment
- Type of assessment details
- Ongoing test.
See the section regarding exam forms in the program curriculum for more information on guidelines and scope. - Aid
- All aids allowed except Generative AI
- Marking scale
- 7-point grading scale
- Censorship form
- No external censorship
- Exam period
Winter exam 2026/27
- Re-exam
In the semester where the course takes place: Free written assignment
In subsequent semesters: Free written assignment
NB! All exams (both ordinary and re-exams) will take place at the end of the autumn semester only, as the course is not offered in the spring
Criteria for exam assesment
Meet the subject's knowledge, skill and competence criteria, as described in the goal description, which demonstrates the minimally acceptable degree of fulfillment of the subject's learning outcome.
Grade 12 is given for an outstanding performance: the student lives up to the course's goal description in an independent and convincing manner with no or few and minor shortcomings
Grade 7 is given for a good performance: the student is confidently able to live up to the goal description, albeit with several shortcomings
Grade 02 is given for an adequate performance: the minimum acceptable performance in which the student is only able to live up to the goal description in an insecure and incomplete manner
Course information
- Language
- English
- Course code
- ASTK18487U
- Credit
- 7,5 ECTS
- Level
- Full Degree MasterBachelor
- Duration
- 1 semester
- Placement
- Autumn
Study board
- Department of Political Science, Study Council
Contracting department
- Department of Political Science
Contracting faculty
- Faculty of Social Sciences
Course Coordinators
- Emily Flore St Denny (2-6a69456e6b7833707a336970)