Scholarlink

<p>This article asks what can be gained by comparing models that are empirically, epistemically and politically disparate. We examine two such cases: a scientific epidemiological model and an Ethiopian model village. Drawing on theoretical perspectives from anthropology and economics we develop a conceptual framework for making visible the normative and political dynamics that structure modeling practices within and across disparate domains. We argue that while simplification and idealization, understood as both modeling practices and epistemic assumptions, are often taken for granted in scientific modeling, they are rarely made explicit once models travel into, or are generated within policy worlds. Through <i>thick comparison</i>, we expose a translational gap at the science–policy interface: in policy contexts, models tend to circulate as exemplary and scalable best practices (models <i>for</i>) while their provisional and fallible character as representations of reality (models <i>of</i>) is largely sidelined by assumptions of effectiveness and success. At the same time, we show that this gap is co-produced within scientific modeling communities, where assumptions about uncertainty, abstraction, and simplification are not always rendered legible beyond scientific domains. We do not claim that our comparison is complete, nor that the process of comparison is unproblematic. Rather, we suggest that thick comparison – particularly when it brings together entities that differ radically in form and socio-political context – can productively illuminate shared dynamics of simplification, erasure, and normativity that are crucial for understanding how models emerge, travel, and intervene between and within different worlds.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Productive Comparison: Thinking with and about Models across Disparate Domains

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月10日

查看全文
  • Marit Tolo Østebø,
  • Rebecca Henderson

摘要

This article asks what can be gained by comparing models that are empirically, epistemically and politically disparate. We examine two such cases: a scientific epidemiological model and an Ethiopian model village. Drawing on theoretical perspectives from anthropology and economics we develop a conceptual framework for making visible the normative and political dynamics that structure modeling practices within and across disparate domains. We argue that while simplification and idealization, understood as both modeling practices and epistemic assumptions, are often taken for granted in scientific modeling, they are rarely made explicit once models travel into, or are generated within policy worlds. Through thick comparison, we expose a translational gap at the science–policy interface: in policy contexts, models tend to circulate as exemplary and scalable best practices (models for) while their provisional and fallible character as representations of reality (models of) is largely sidelined by assumptions of effectiveness and success. At the same time, we show that this gap is co-produced within scientific modeling communities, where assumptions about uncertainty, abstraction, and simplification are not always rendered legible beyond scientific domains. We do not claim that our comparison is complete, nor that the process of comparison is unproblematic. Rather, we suggest that thick comparison – particularly when it brings together entities that differ radically in form and socio-political context – can productively illuminate shared dynamics of simplification, erasure, and normativity that are crucial for understanding how models emerge, travel, and intervene between and within different worlds.