Here's a new word which came across our desk from the October issue of eSchool News--agnotology...the cultural production of ignorance.
Well, maybe the word isn't that new. As a matter of fact, Stanford University hosted a conference last October on the use of agnotology in medicine, biomedical ethics, geography, and the history of science. Robert Proctor, a professor from Stanford, explained in the Stanford Report published just before the conference that we know quite a bit about how we know, but very little about why we don't know, explaining that ignorance is frequently created or maintained, sometimes purposefully or not. Proctor uses the example of the tobacco industry which, because of its lack of publicized research about the cancerous effects of smoking, managed to create doubt in the minds of the public about the connection between cigarettes and lung cancer. The telling image below is from the cover of the conference brochure.

Londa Schiebinger, in her book, Plants and Empire Colonial Bioprospecting in the Atlantic World, studies the cultural basis of agnotology, specifically focusing on the withholding of knowledge of the abortion-producing faculties of the peacock flower, discovered in the West Indies, even though that flower, commonly known as poinciana, became very popular in Europe as an ornamental shrub.
These are all examples of purposeful agnotology caused by cultural, military, or commercial concerns.
Gregg Downey's article in eSchool News, titled "Ignorant on purpose," creates a connection, in our view, with agnotology and accountability. As an example, he offers the case of the 5000 moisture-ridden SAT exams which last year received incorrect scores as a result of their dampness. An expensive study conducted by Booz Allen Hamilton as a result of this scoring problem recommended better scanning software and increased training for test center personnel, but failed to ever identify WHY the tests got wet in the first place. Patrick Houston, a Booz Allen VP, skillfully employed agnotology in his 'explanatory' statement:
Whether the papers were wet because of rain, or because of someone’s sweat, is not important. However the water got there, if you have the process and controls in place to pick up the problem and identify it and go back and score it in the proper manner, that’s what’s important.
It seems to us that what is important here is accountability, and where agnotology is employed, accountability disappears. Can you think of examples where agnotology was employed to avoid accountability?
Technorati links: agnotology, accountability
--Jane Perzyk