{"title":"杀伤链:证券化学院的认识论与伦理学","authors":"L. Gearon","doi":"10.22381/kc8120203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":". In the light of terrorism threats worldwide, universities have become increasingly conscious of and committed to enhancing the security of campuses, the safety of staff and students, and the protection of academic knowledge. By such processes, universities have become partners, conscious or otherwise, in a wider process of securitization. This has involved the academy in engagements with legal authorities, as well as security and intelligence agencies. But there is though nothing new about such interactions; indeed, universities have long been conscious and unconscious partners with security and intelligence agencies, and such engagements extend far beyond counterterrorism. Indeed, a plethora of recent articles have popularized and to some degree maintained the glamorous allure of such a relationship (Golden, 2017; Reisz, 2018), typically conjuring an air of intrigue, conspiracy and mystery about it. However, little serious attention has been given to the ethical implications of such engagements for universities and academics. Drawing (though not uncritically) on securitization theory (Bagge Laustsen & Wæver, 2000; Buzan, Weaver, & de Wilde, 1997; Buzan & Hansen, 2009), the article demonstrates how the securitized university has become part of what military theorists call ‘the kill chain.’ Exemplifying four academic ethical principles that can guide university engagements with the security and intelligence agencies, namely, academic standards, academic freedom, academic engagement, and professional conduct, the article defines the securitized university as an interface of the epistemological and the ethical: that is, in new models of warfare where intellectual capital is a feature of university relations with security and intelligence agencies as well as the military the Academy knowledge gathering and dissemination of that knowledge confronts through the kill chain new moral ground.","PeriodicalId":37557,"journal":{"name":"Knowledge Cultures","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Kill Chain: Epistemologies and Ethics in the Securitized Academy\",\"authors\":\"L. Gearon\",\"doi\":\"10.22381/kc8120203\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\". In the light of terrorism threats worldwide, universities have become increasingly conscious of and committed to enhancing the security of campuses, the safety of staff and students, and the protection of academic knowledge. By such processes, universities have become partners, conscious or otherwise, in a wider process of securitization. This has involved the academy in engagements with legal authorities, as well as security and intelligence agencies. But there is though nothing new about such interactions; indeed, universities have long been conscious and unconscious partners with security and intelligence agencies, and such engagements extend far beyond counterterrorism. Indeed, a plethora of recent articles have popularized and to some degree maintained the glamorous allure of such a relationship (Golden, 2017; Reisz, 2018), typically conjuring an air of intrigue, conspiracy and mystery about it. However, little serious attention has been given to the ethical implications of such engagements for universities and academics. Drawing (though not uncritically) on securitization theory (Bagge Laustsen & Wæver, 2000; Buzan, Weaver, & de Wilde, 1997; Buzan & Hansen, 2009), the article demonstrates how the securitized university has become part of what military theorists call ‘the kill chain.’ Exemplifying four academic ethical principles that can guide university engagements with the security and intelligence agencies, namely, academic standards, academic freedom, academic engagement, and professional conduct, the article defines the securitized university as an interface of the epistemological and the ethical: that is, in new models of warfare where intellectual capital is a feature of university relations with security and intelligence agencies as well as the military the Academy knowledge gathering and dissemination of that knowledge confronts through the kill chain new moral ground.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37557,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Knowledge Cultures\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Knowledge Cultures\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22381/kc8120203\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knowledge Cultures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22381/kc8120203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Kill Chain: Epistemologies and Ethics in the Securitized Academy
. In the light of terrorism threats worldwide, universities have become increasingly conscious of and committed to enhancing the security of campuses, the safety of staff and students, and the protection of academic knowledge. By such processes, universities have become partners, conscious or otherwise, in a wider process of securitization. This has involved the academy in engagements with legal authorities, as well as security and intelligence agencies. But there is though nothing new about such interactions; indeed, universities have long been conscious and unconscious partners with security and intelligence agencies, and such engagements extend far beyond counterterrorism. Indeed, a plethora of recent articles have popularized and to some degree maintained the glamorous allure of such a relationship (Golden, 2017; Reisz, 2018), typically conjuring an air of intrigue, conspiracy and mystery about it. However, little serious attention has been given to the ethical implications of such engagements for universities and academics. Drawing (though not uncritically) on securitization theory (Bagge Laustsen & Wæver, 2000; Buzan, Weaver, & de Wilde, 1997; Buzan & Hansen, 2009), the article demonstrates how the securitized university has become part of what military theorists call ‘the kill chain.’ Exemplifying four academic ethical principles that can guide university engagements with the security and intelligence agencies, namely, academic standards, academic freedom, academic engagement, and professional conduct, the article defines the securitized university as an interface of the epistemological and the ethical: that is, in new models of warfare where intellectual capital is a feature of university relations with security and intelligence agencies as well as the military the Academy knowledge gathering and dissemination of that knowledge confronts through the kill chain new moral ground.
期刊介绍:
Knowledge Cultures is a multidisciplinary journal that draws on the humanities and social sciences at the intersections of economics, philosophy, library science, international law, politics, cultural studies, literary studies, new technology studies, history, and education. The journal serves as a hothouse for research with a specific focus on how knowledge futures will help to define the shape of higher education in the twenty-first century. In particular, the journal is interested in general theoretical problems concerning information and knowledge production and exchange, including the globalization of higher education, the knowledge economy, the interface between publishing and academia, and the development of the intellectual commons with an accent on digital sustainability, commons-based production and exchange of information and culture, the development of learning and knowledge networks and emerging concepts of freedom, access and justice in the organization of knowledge production.