when an anthropologist meets hydrologists: a reflection on the … an... · 2014-03-09 ·...

431

When an Anthropologist Meets Hydrologists: A Reflection on the Epistemology and

Sociology of Knowledge of Mekong Hydrology1

Jakkrit Sangkhamanee2

432 วารสารศิลปศาสตร์ 433

AbstractThe article discusses how hydrological science came to be

benchmarkknowledgeinregionalmanagementoftheMekongRiver.Itexamines‘hydrology’throughsociologicalstudiesofscienceclassroomsandlaboratoriesandoffersaphilosophicalanalysisofscientificpractices.Theauthor,asananthropologist,arguesthatscientificknowledgeofwater,andthesciencecommunitythatproducesit,areculturalconstructs.Sincescientifichydrologyisalwaysshapedbysocialfactors,thereisnoabsolutelegitimacyinclaimingscientificpractice,bias-freemethodology,anduniver-salityofknowledgeimplementation.Thearticlecallsforanon-monolithicstandardinjustifyingknowledgeemployedinrivermanagement.

Keywords:SociologyofKnowledge,Mekong,Hydrology,WaterManagement

บทคัดย่อบทความนี้อภิปรายแนวคิดของการหยิบยกเอาองค์ความรู้

อุทกวิทยาแบบวิทยาศาสตร์มาใช้เป็นบรรทัดฐานในการจัดการนำ้า โดยเฉพาะในลุ่มแม่นำ้าโขง ผู้เขียนวิเคราะห์ความรู้อุทกวิทยา ไม่เพียงแต่ในแง่ที่เป็นความรู้แบบวิทยาศาสตร์อย่างที่มักยอมรับและยกย่องกันมาหากแต่ทำาความเข้าใจความรู้ดังกล่าวในแง่ของการเป็นปรากฏการณ์และกระบวนการทางสังคมแบบหนึ่ง นอกจากนี้ งานชิ้นนี้ยังวิจารณ์กระบวนการแสวงหาและสร้างความรู้ของอุทกวิทยาในลุ่มแม่นำ้าโขงที่ไม่ได้มีความเข้มงวดแบบ “วิทยาศาสตร์” ตามที่คนภายนอกมักเข้าใจและยอมรับกันในฐานะที่ผู้เขียนเป็นนักมานุษยวิทยาการเข้าไปศึกษาอย่างมีส่วนร่วมในห้องเรียนและห้องทดลองอุทกวิทยานั้น ทำาให้พบว่าความรู้อุทกวิทยาที่อ้างว่าเป็นวิทยาศาสตร์นั้น ในความเป็นจริงแล้ว คือความรู้ที่เป็นแบบแผนทางวัฒนธรรมแบบหนึ่ง และชุมชนวิทยาศาสตร์เอง ก็เหมือนกับชุมชนทางวัฒนธรรมอื่นๆ ทั่วไปดังนั้นจึงไม่ควรจะได้รับสิทธิ์ขาด ในการนิยามว่าความรู้ใดคือความรู้ที่เป็นมาตรฐานหนึ่งเดียวในการจัดการนำ้าอย่างมีประสิทธิภาพ บทความนี้เสนอว่า เราควรข้ามพ้นความเชื่อที่มองว่าอุทกวิทยาแบบวิทยาศาสตร์คือหนทางหนึ่งเดียวของความรู้เรือ่งนำา้และการจดัการนำา้หากแต่ควรเปดิโอกาสให้ความรู้หลากหลายมติิเข้ามามีส่วนในการสร้างองค์ความรู้อย่างเท่าเทียม

คาํ สาํคญั:สงัคมวทิยาความรู้แมน่ำา้โขงอทุกวทิยาการจดัการนำา้


‘Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world’sarcasticallyproclaimed a renowned science philosopher Bruno Latour (1983). Thestatementrepresentsoneamongmanyexamplesreflectingthemental-ityofscientistsonceequippedwithscientificprovisionand thus theirself-perceptionofholdingpowerinmanagingtheworld.Hitherto,suchassertionhasbeenrecountedbythefellowsofscienceandhasgainedsupportfrommanysciencecommunitiesatlarge.Theunderlyingbeliefisthatscience,scientificmethodology,andscientificcommunityarelegitimateauthoritiesinproducingneutral,absoluteknowledgeandsoundpractices,thusearninglegitimacytocontroltheexternalnaturalworld.Suchidea,however,isnotonlyinitselfproblematic.Buteventuallyrenderssomechallengingdebatesofitsrolestowardthewidersocietybeyondthatofthescientificcommunityduringseveralpastdecades.Thecaseinpointisthattheassumptioninwhichscientificknowledge,onceproducedandgainedacceptance fromsciencecommunities, isepistemologically andmethodologicallyneutralanduniversal, that itcanbeusedbyscienceexpertsindifferentsettings,isinfactaninsufficienttreatmentofscienceinsocietalreality.

Looking from a philosophical aspect, ‘science’ itself has beenquestionedasregardsitsepistemologicaldisconnectivityandnon-universalmethodologies(Feyerabend1975,1989andKuhn1996).Thesociologyofscience,additionally,raisesupthedebatesofhowsciencehasbeendistortedwhenputtingintorathermorecomplexsocialconditions(Merton1937).Someargumentsevengofurtherbypointingoutthatscienceisofteninfluencedbysocialfactorsnotonlywhenitisexternallyappliedintopractice.Infact,however,theproductionofsciencewithinanexclusivesciencecommunityitselfisalreadyaninitialmatterofsocialconditionthatthesciencecommunityanditsknowledgearesituatedinto(Knorr-Cetina1981and1999,LatourandWoolgar1979).Inthisregard,notonlywecananalyzescientificknowledgeandthepracticeofscienceasbeingshapedbyexternalculturalfactorsfromwidersociety.Butalsoscienceandthe

sciencecommunitycanbeconsideredasbeingaculturalentityinitself.Inotherwords,wecangobeyondaccepting thedichotomybetweenscienceandculture.Culture,asthisarticleargues,isinfactanintrinsicmatterofsciencecommunityandpractice.Oneanthropologistoncerightlyproposes ‘give anthropologists a culture, and we will show how utterly science and its laboratory are entangled in it.’(Martin1998:41).Thisarticleisanattempttoillustratetheverypointthatscience,andinthiscasescientifichydrologyinparticular,isaproductionofcultureaswellasaculturalproduct.Inthatcase,wecanseethesociologyofscientificknowledgesinceitisbeingproducedwithinarestrictedenvironmentoflaboratoryandclassroom,throughtheouteractivitiesofsciencewhenitisappliedintosocietythrough‘scientific’techniques,aswellasinthecontextofpoliticaldecisionmaking.

Recently, a large number of academic literature produced bydevelopment anthropologists concerning river ecology, knowledge indevelopment,andwater/riverresourcemanagementissuesespeciallyintheMekongregionoftencriticizetherolesofhydrologistsandthenegativeimpactsofusingmerelytechnicalscienceinjustifyingwaterdevelopmentprojects.Theseanthropologistshavedoneso,however,withoutconsider-ingthemselvesasoutsiderstothescientific‘community’.Asmuchasanthropologistsareconcernedwithethnographicstudyandthepositioningofthemselvesasbeinginsidersinthestudyofsocialcommunity,ironi-cally,thereareonlyfewattemptsbyanthropologiststosociallyimmersethemselvesandtheirstudyintotheso-calledcommunityofscience(Latour1990,seealsoFranklin1995).Thisarticlesuggeststhat,besidesmerelycriticizing the impactsofscientificpracticesonsociety fromtheouterposition,thereisalsoaneedforanthropologiststoreallyputthemselvesintothecommunityofscientiststounderstandtheirbackground,practices,andculturesfromwithintheirsciencesociety.Basedonsuchconcern,thisarticlerecountstheauthor’sreflexiveexperienceduringthetimehe


attendedascientifictrainingcourseand laboratoryworkonwatershedhydrologyatoneofthe leadinghydrologicalscience institutions intheMekongsubregion.ThetrainingwascoupledwithadditionalinformationgainedfrommeetingsanddiscussionswithofficialsofThailand’sRoyalIrrigationDepartmentconcerningthehydrologicalknowledgeproductionin Mekong river management. As an anthropologist, this four-monthscientifictrainingallowedtheauthortoimmerseintothecommunityofhydrologistsandtheirhydrologicalpracticum.Thisparticipation-observationalexperience,inturn,amountstosomereflexiveethnographicanalysisofitsmethodology,epistemology,aswellassociologyofscientificknowledgeproduction. In this article, theauthorwill explore the livesandworksoftraininghydrologists,theirengagementwithclassroomandlaboratoryworks,aswellastheproductionandutilizationofitsrepresentationsuchashydrographs,maps,andriverclassificationcharts.

Theaimofthisarticle istoshowthathydrologyasanappliedscientific knowledge, instead of being universal and subjective-free asoftenclaimedbyhydrologists,doesnotescapethefactthatitisculturallyconstructed.Inotherwords,thisarticlearguesagainsttheveryideathatscientificepistemologyandmethodologyareobjective,universalandpurefromanyotherculturalfactorsthatencloseit.Theargumentthatseeingscientificknowledgeproductionasnotbias-free,butratherparadigm-ladenleadsus to furtherquestion thesoledominationofhydro-scienceandhydrologistsinriverresourcemanagement.Thecritiquetosoleacceptanceofscientifichydrologyastheonlybenchmarkknowledgesysteminrivermanagementallowspolicymakerstoseeitslimitationsanddrawbacks.Therefore,thisopensuptootheralternativeknowledgeonwatertoberecognizedandintegratedintopractice.

Benchmarking HydrologyHydrology,accordingtotheFederalCouncilofScienceandTechnol-

ogyforScientificHydrology,isthe‘science’thattreatsofthewaterof

theearth,theiroccurrence,circulation,anddistribution,theirchemicalandphysicalproperties,andtheirreactionwiththeirenvironmentincludingtheirrelationtolivingthings.Thedomainofhydrologyembracesthefulllifehistoryofwaterontheearth(FederalCouncilofScienceandTechnologyforScientificHydrology1962,citedinKazmann1972).However,asinotherbranchesofsciencerelateddisciplines,thereisnoconcertedagreementofwhatshouldbeincludedorexcludedinthestudiesofhydrology,nottomentionofitsappliedandalliedsubjectssuchasthoseinengineering,biology,chemistry,geology,andresourcemanagementofriverbasins.

UnderthecurrentMekongriverbasinmanagement,theMekongRiverCommission(MRC),aswellastheAsianDevelopmentBankandtheWorldBankwhicharethekeyinternationalorganizationsinmanag-ingtheMekongstilluseconventionalmethodsintheirplanningofriverdevelopment(seeMRC2005aand2005b,andWB2004forexamples).Theirinterestsinmanagingtheriververymuchrevolvesaroundtheissuesofhydropower,inter-basinwaterdiversion,domesticandindustrialuse,and irrigation.Withthisrationaleofdevelopment,mostofhydrologicalknowledge is based on selected technicalmethodologies that can beusedtodevelopmodelstounderstand,calculatechanges,andmanageriverforthepurposeofdevelopmentprojects.Asoftenshownintheirpublications,numbersofsubregionalMekongriverdevelopmentschemesunder thedevelopment agencies such as theMRCand theADBareorientingtowardthemodelingofriverregulationswhicharelargelybasedonmodern technical knowledge on hydrology. As the chief executiveofficeroftheMRChasmarkedoutinthereportcalledOverview of the Hydrology of the Mekong Basin(MRC2005a):

‘The link between hydrological regime, riverine ecology,theriparianenvironmentandthedegreetowhichariver’swaterresourcescanbesustainablyandequitablydevelopedarecomplex.Thestartingpointtounravelingthiscomplex-


ity isanunderstandingof thehydrological regimeandaconsensusamongstpolicymakersofwhat represents the benchmark hydrology against which the magnitude ofanychangedcanbemeasured. One of the MRC Water Utilization Project is the identification of this benchmark hydrology’.(Emphasisadded)

Thisreport,whichissetto‘uncoveranddescribethekeypatternsandfeaturesoftheMekongBasinhydrologyandsynthesizetheresultsinawaythatprovidesomebasicinsightsintotheregimeofriversystem’(MRC2005a),ishoweverprimarilyaimedatbringingmerelythose‘appliedscientists andengineers ranging fromenvironmental analysts towaterresourceplanners’increatingaworkable‘Mekonghydrologicalknowledge’.Theidentificationofwhatshouldbeconsideredstandardor‘benchmark’inhydrologicalknowledgeforrivermanagementbytheMRC,however,isproblematicasitisexclusivelybasedonaspecificsetofscientificobserva-tionsandtechnicalmodeling.FortheMRC,otheralternativeformsofriverecologicalknowledgesuchaslocalmorphologicalunderstandingandriverclassificationsstandoutsidetheirmeaningfulreference.Thepredominationofsuchexpertiseovertheotherexistingformsofknowledgeareinacrucial juncturewhere thecloserexaminationsareneeded inorder tocreateanintegrativeapproachtoriverdevelopmentoftheregion.

Hydro Technocracy as a Cultural Community PaulFeyerabend,aleadingphilosopherofscience,hascommented

thatscientificknowledge,statementsandachievementscertainlyarenotindependentofhumanthoughtsandactions.Theyare, indeed,humanproducts.Asheargues,thoughscientificknowledgeisideallyformulatedtoselectonlythe‘objective’ingredientsofourenvironment,nevertheless,theystillreflectthepeculiaritiesoftheindividuals,groups,societiesfromwhichtheyarearose(Feyerabend1988).Hence,itisundeniablethat,say,

hydrologicalmodelswhich isproducedwithinscientificdomain,and isconsideredscientificachievement,cannot,andinfactnever,standalone.Rather,suchscientificproductionandacceptancearereliedsomuchinthesocialcontextthattheproducersandtheusersareembedded,makingscientificknowledgeatrulysociallyconditionedconstruct.Inthefollow-ings,thearticleexaminesahydrologicalsciencesociety,aswellastheir‘scientific’productsofascienceacademicinstitution.ThisistohighlighttheculturalaspectsoftheproductionprocessinscientifichydrologyintheMekongregion.

Water Laboratory and Classroom: ‘Out of Place, Out of Mind’Concerningbyandlargethatthewaysofthinking,defining,master-

ing,andpracticingofthewaterknowledgebyhydrological‘experts’intheMekongisessentiallyinfluencedbywhatwecallascientifichydrologyparadigmtorivermanagement,inthissectionemphasiswillbeonthesocialbehaviorsofhydrologistsinanacademicinstitutionfundamentallyusingtechnicalscientificepistemology,methodology,andlogical-positivistparadigm in teaching andproducing knowledgeonMekongwater.AsclaimedbyLivingstone,scienceisconcernedwithideasandinstitution,withtheoriesandpractices,andwithprinciplesandperformance(Livingstone2003:12).Itisofinterestinthissectiontoexplorescienceclassroomand laboratory as fundamental sites in the generation of hydrologicalknowledge.It isimportanttoinvestigatecontextualaspectsofscienceand its practitioners as to understand the relations between scienceinstitutionandtheproductionofitsagencies.Asananthropologist,theauthorapproachedtheacademyofsciencebyconsideringscienceasaspecial‘culture’(Martin1998),andscienceschoolasadistinct‘culturalunit’likeothersocialgroupssuchascivilmovements,tribes,nations,orartistswhichistiedtotheirsurroundingsbylanguageuse,aswellassocialandmaterialintervention(Feyerabend1996).Inotherwords,the


author’spurposeistoventureintothe‘terraincognitaofscientificculture’(Livingstone2003:16)inwhichmostanthropologistsandsocialscientistsdealingwithhydrologicalsciencerarelyputthemselvesinto.

Forculturalanalysisofthishydrologicalsciencecommunity,theveryconceptof‘culture’isdefinedfollowingCrick,asaprocessofacquiringanddisplayingknowledge--ofrules,values,andbeliefs(Crick1982:287).Thissectionisthenareflectionofethnographicstudyinasciencecommunityjustasthewaymanyotheranthropologistsconducttheirethnographicfieldworkinadistinctivesocialcommunity.Usingethnographicapproachinthestudyofsciencecommunitynotonlyenableustotakeacloserlookofhowscientistproducetheirknowledgeindaily‘scientific’activities.Italsoallowsanimmersionintotheirsocialprocessofcommunication,ideologicalreaffirmationaswellaspersonalindecisionandconfusionthroughouttheprocessofknowledgemaking.Suchinsituparticipation(Woolgar1982,1988)willthenpermitanthropologistsafirmgroundtocriticizescientists’action ‘fromthedistance’ fromacloserstandpoint.The reflection inthispartisverymuchinfluencedbyThomasKuhninhisStructure of Scientific Revolutions (1996)astheauthorwillapplysomeaspectsofKuhn’sworktotheelaborationofpresentMekongscientifichydrologyandoneofitsexpertisecommunitiesintheMekongregion.

DuringAugust-December2007,theauthorparticipatedinthetrainingonwatershedhydrologyatoneoftheregional-leadingscienceacademy,whichfromnowonwillbereferredto,employingKuhn(1996)’sterm,asNormalScienceInstitution(NSI)3.TheNSIisoneofthemostprominenttechnicalinstitutionsintheMekongregioninproducingknowledgeandhuman resource in hydrological development circleswithin the region.Foundedinaregionalgraduateschoolofengineering,itsmissionhasbeentodevelophighlyqualifiedprofessionalswhowillplayaleadingroleinthetechnicalandeconomicdevelopmentoftheregion.TheinstitutewassetupduringtheColdWarbyathenprominentinternationalorganization

which primarilymissionwas to block further communist expansion inSoutheastAsia.Atitsearlystage,theNSIreceivedfundingandtechnicalknow-howfromorganizationsandgovernmentsaroundtheworld;theUSaloneputUSD1millionintotheestablishmentoftheschool(TheTimes1968b).Itswaterscienceprogram,wheretheauthorwasaffiliatedwith,is one of the oldestwater-related academic sectors in Thailand,withstronginternationalrecognition.ThisNSIoftenstressesthat itsalumnihaveplayedcrucialrolesinmanyhydrologicalprojectspertainingtotheMekonganditstributaries4.

The classof hydrological sciencewas scheduled for three-hourlecturestwiceaweekoncampus.Outdoorlaboratoryfocusingonme-teorologicaltoolsandtechniqueswasalsopartofthetraining.Towardtheendofthetraining,fieldtripwasorganizedtovisitseveralreservoirs,irrigationandurbansanitaryprojectsaswellaswatersupplyingcompanyintheeasternpartofThailand.Thewatershedhydrologyclasswaspartofthefull-timeregularprogramforgraduateandpost-graduatestudentsincivilengineering.Eventhoughnotallofthestudentsinclasssharedacivilengineeringbackground,almostallofthemweretrained insci-entificdisciplinessuchasmathematics,physics,andchemistryintheirundergraduateprogram.Theclassconsistedofabout30studentsfromdifferentAsiannationalitiessuchasThai,Vietnamese,Cambodian,Indian,Bangladeshi,Nepali,Indonesian,SriLankan,Bhutanese,andPakistani.Mostofthestudentswerefundedbyorganizationstheyworkedforathome,andwerecommittedtoreturnandcontributethenewlygainedknowledgebacktotheiroffices.Thestudentshadvariedpriorexperiencesrangingfromirrigation,hydraulicengineering,hydropower,coastalmanagement,groundwater,watersupply,andurbansanitarymanagement.TheteachingwasconductedusingEnglishasamediumandtaughtsolelybyanIndianprofessorwhohadspentthepastfewdecadesworking,researchingandwasinvolvedinmanyhydrologicaldevelopmentprojectsinThailandandabroad.


Inthewatershedhydrologytraining,learningissueswasorganizedtogivethestudentofhydrologyanunderstandingoftheoverallscopeofwhatconstitutesthe‘science’ofhydrology.Startingwithhydrologiccycle,studentswereintroducedtosomeprimary‘facts’aboutthesystemofwaterintheworld.Thisincludedbasicunderstandingofhydrologyandmeteorology,precipitation,evaporationandevapotranspiration,infiltrationandsoilwater,groundwater,andstreamflow,floodanditsroutingsystem.Thecoursethendevelopedintoamoreprofoundunderstandingofwatertransportwhichcoveredtheissuesofwaterquality,erosionandsediment,hydrologiceffectsoflandusechangeaswellascontaminanttransports.Thelasttwosectionsofthecoursewereintegratedintoapplicationofknowledgewithdatacollection,analysis,andavailabletechnology.Thisfocusedonstatisticaltreatmentofhydrologicdata,frequencyanalysisandhydrologicaltimeseries.Towardtheend,thetechnicalapplicationpartintroducedstudentstosomeoftheadvancedtreatmenttorealsituations,suchashydrologicforecastingandhydrologicdesignforwateruse,urbandrainageandfloodcontrol.Throughoutthiswiderangeof issuesdealtwithinthecourse,however,only2-3textbookswereintensivelyusedasreadingmaterialforlecturingaswellasdiscussioninclass.

Severaltimesduringhydrologicaltraining,studentswereassignedtoconductsome‘scientific’experimentsinlaboratorysettings.Theideawasthatstudentswouldbebetterequippedwithwhattheyhavelearnedfromtextbooksandarticleassignmentsinclassroom.Waterlaboratoryisnotonlyanexclusivegeographicalplaceforhydrologicalsciencestudentstoexercisetheirknowledgeandimagination.But,symbolically,enteringintolaboratoryexperimentsalsomeansa‘riteofpassage’withinscientificcultureinwhicheachscientistmuststrugglethroughtoachievemasteryoverstudiednature(Livingstone2003:43).Thesignificanceofsciencelabisduetoitsfunctionasaplacewhereidealenvironmentforexperimentcan take place and sustain. It is a designated spacewhere scientificequipments hydrologists need for their exploration are systematically

installed.Inadditiontohydrauliclab,meteorologicalfieldlaboratoryisalsoapartofhydrologicaltraining.Thisisanopen,yetstillrestricted,spacewheresomedatainrelationstochangingenvironmentsuchasrainfall,temperature,sunlight,humidity,evaporation,andwinddirectionandspeedandsoon,canbecollectedonafrequentbasis.Livingstoneconsiderslaboratory as an emblematic space replete with cultural meaning. Asheargues,bydesignatedasasiteofknowledgeproduction,laboratorycouldfunctiononlybythegeographicallyprivilegedwhowerepermittedtoconductscientificpractices(Livingstone2003).Itisthatwiththetrustofpeopleoutsidescientificlaboratorycouldtheywarrantthecredibilityoftheclaimsandknowledgemadeinsidethelaboratorialspace.Withoutthe faithful acceptance of wider public toward the inclusive practiceofscientists insociallyunobservable laboratory, it isbynomean thatlaboratory-induced knowledge can claim for its authority as universallyscientific.Suchsocialbeliefmayholdtrueforonewhoneverhavechancetostepinsidescientificlabs.Frommyparticipatoryobservationinbothclosedandfieldlaboratories,however,itissimplywithoutanyefforttoencounteramomentwheresciencepractitionersareoftenconfusedwiththeirdata,process,specializedequipments,aswellasmismatchedamongtheirfellowscientistsinconductingacollaborativeresearch.Contrastedtogenericsocialideologytowardscientism,theactualpracticeoflaboratoryhereprovestrulynon-idealisticandbaffled.

Inadditiontothelaboratories,theauthor’sclassroomexperiencewiththetrainingofhydrologistsatNSIconfirmedKuhn’sargumentthatthesuccessesofnormalsciencearerecountedbysciencetextbooks.Unlikemanysocialscienceclasseswheremanydebatableideasandtextsareexploredwithnodefinitiveanswertosocialcomplexities,onlyonemaintextbookcouldbeused inwatershedhydrologyclass,andthisseemstobesufficientenoughtoprovideaverylinearthinkingabouthowthescientifichydrologicalknowledgeisaccumulatedthroughtime.AsKuhnargues,manysciencecurriculadonotsuggestevengraduatestudents


toreadtheworknotwrittenespeciallyforthem.Thesciencetextbooks,accordingtoKuhn,expoundthebodyofacceptedtheory,illustratemanyorallofitssuccessfulapplications,andcomparetheseapplicationswithexemplaryobservationsandexperiments(Kuhn1996:165).

Notonlyaresciencestudentspoorlyequippedwithnon-scientificreadingsaboutthesocietyandenvironmenttheyhavetoworkwith.Eventhehistoryofthescientificfielditselfislackingintheclassroomtoprovidestudentsabackgroundofwhattheyareadvancingat.Hydrologistshaveverylittleknowledgeoftheirheritage,andhistoricallyerroneousstatementscanfrequentlybeseeninhydrologicliterature(Biswas1970).Kuhnironicallyaskedwhy,afterall,sciencestudentsneedtoreadtheclassicalworksofsciencephilosopherssuchasNewtonandEinstein,wheneverythingtheyneedtoknowisrecapitulatedinafarbrieferforminanup-to-datetextbook(1996:165).Nevertheless,evenwithHistory of Hydrology(Biswas1970),oneamongtheveryfewbooksthataimstoprovideahistoryofhydrologywrittenbyahydrologistitself,thedevelopmentofthefieldofhydrologyisdisappointinglyportrayedaslinearandaccumulativeinnaturethrougha chronological timeline. In this regard, scientific developmentmerelybecomesapiecemealprocessbywhichdiscoveredfacts,theories,andmethodshavebeenaddedtotheever-growingstockpilethatconstitutesscientificknowledgeandtechniques(Kuhn1996:2).

Textbooksactasaconfirmationtothestudentsofscientifichydrol-ogythattheirlearningknowledgeisprogressivelylinearandconsistofwell-connectedcomponentsdespitethefactthatinrealityhydrologyreliessomuchtorandomnessofdatabeingavailableataspecifictimeandplace.Thoughitiswellacceptedamongworldwidehydrologiststhattheinformationordatasufficienttobeusedtojustifyanyproject’sdecision-makingorthepredictionofriverchangesneedtobecarefullycollectedoveraperiodofatleast30years,butthiscommon‘scientific’acceptanceisrarelypracticedespeciallywhenrapiddevelopmentofwatershedareasisapressingneed.

Less obvious, but by no means less essential, than sciencetextbooks iswhat Kuhn called a ‘paradigm’. A paradigm iswhat themembersofascientificcommunityshare,and,conversely,ascientificcommunityconsistsofpeoplewhoshareaparadigm(Kuhn1996:176).Inscientificknowledge,aparadigmmayconsistofthegeneraltheoreticalassumptions,lawsandtechniquesforapplicationthatthemembersofaparticularscientificcommunityadopt.Theauthor’strainingfellowsweremostly fromorganizationswhichworkedon the ‘technical’ aspects inwatermanagement,suchasfromtheirrespectiveirrigationdepartmentsof several different countries in Asia.Most, if not all, of themwerewellequippedwithprerequisiteknowledgeinmathematics,physicsandchemistry.Onlytheauthor,himself,hadsocialsciencebackgroundandthiswouldmakethemdoubthispresenceinthisappliedsciencetraining.ItcouldbesaidthatthesepeoplewerepreparedtotakeanadvancedstepinthestudyofscientifichydrologyparadigmhereattheNSI.Thestudyofparadigm,asKuhndiscussed,iswhatmainlypreparesthestudentsforthemembershipintheparticularscientificcommunitywhichtheywilllaterpractice.Itisbecausethattheyjoinsame-minedfellowswholearnedthebasesoftheirfieldfromthesameconcretemodels,theirsubsequentpracticewillseldomevokeovertdisagreementoverfundamentals(Kuhn1996:11).Theessenceofparadigmhereisthatitsetsthestandardsforlegitimateworkwithinthescienceitgoverns.Inthatregard,whatcountsasaproblemcanchangefromparadigmtoparadigmandthestandardsetoftechniquestosolveproblemsalsovarybasedondistinctiveparadigmseachscientistholds.Hydrologyasonebranchofscienceandthepracticesofhydrologists,then,canbesaidtogovernbyasortofparadigmthatisdependenttosomespecifictheorytoknowledge.

Fromtheauthor’sparticipationinthetraining,technicalknowledgein scientific hydrologywith fixed paradigm is expressed through rigidmathematical equations and conclusively defined factor calculations tounderstand,predict,andmanagechangesinrivers.Manytimesinclass,


thescience instructorwouldstress thenecessity that all studentsbefamiliarandcomprehendedwiththe‘conceptual’frameworkoftheoverallpictureeachparticularaspecthydrologyaimstorepresent.The‘concept’ofhydrologyhere,however,isnotwhatwemayexpectassomesortofgeneralexplanationaboutthehydrologicalconditionatinterest.Rather,itisbasicallyamathematicalequationthatisbeingconsideredastheconceptinunderstandingthenatureofwaterworld.Bysubstitutethe‘conceptual’understandingofwatersintomathematicalequations,hydrologicalsciencereducedthecomplexityofnatureandtherelationstoitssurroundings,includinghumanactivities,intoamerenumericalcalculation.Inadditiontothatreductionismhydrologicalscienceenjoysinitspracticum,mathemati-calequationsand,tothegreaterextent,scientificlawofnature,canbeconsideredas‘symbolicgeneralizations’(Kuhn1996)understandableonlywithinascience-culturedcommunity.Theverybasichydrologicalequation,say,‘P–Q–ET–G=Δ∆S’isalanguageorexpressionthatcannotbeknowntoonesoutsidethesciencecommunity.AsKuhnargues,withoutthisgeneralizationtorepresentlawofnature,therewouldbenopointsatwhichgroupmemberscouldattachthepowerfultechniquesoflogicalandmathematicalmanipulationintheirpuzzle-solvingenterprise(Kuhn1996:183).Ihadnosurprisethatmostofthetimeinclass,whenequationslikethiswerepresented,communitymemberswouldknowwhatP,Q,andETstoodfor.Furthermore,thesesharedsymbolicrepresentationswerenotmerelyalanguageforcommunication.Moreimportantly,theywouldgivehydrologystudentsideasaboutthebehaviorsofwaterprecipitation,evapotranspiration, and hydrologic cycle as a whole. Such symbolicgeneralizationtrulyactsasalanguageincommunicatingandcognitivelyconfirmingoftheirtheoreticalparadigminscience.

Theuseofgeneralizedsymbolstorepresentnaturalfactorsandthelogical-positivistparadigmtrainedinscienceclassesoftengivehydrolo-gistsadifficulttimewhenaccessingintotherealcomplexsituationsoftheecologicalsysteminsocialcontexts.Thedifficultiesarecausedby

undeterminedfactorssuchashumanintervention,unknownnaturalchangesbothatlocalandwatershedscales,lackingoflong-termdata,andlimitedaccesstomeasurewaterqualityandquantity.Thisoftenleadshydrologiststousesimplewaysofsolvingproblemsor,evenworst,simplify riverecologicalsystemtofittheirequationsorscientificlaws.Also,withfixedparadigmgainedfromscientifictraining,scientistscanrarelyseesomeotheraspectsoflocalpracticeinregardtowater.

AnotheraspectofscientificparadigmtrainingiswhatKuhncalled‘metaphysicalparadigm’(Kuhn1996:184).Thisisasharedcommitmenttocertainbeliefssuchasthehydrologists’faithintheirhydraulicmodels.Themodelherecanbebothtechnicalmodelsusedtocapturenaturalphenomenaaswellasthecognitivemodelsinthinkingaboutnature.Asmentionedearlier,Mekong rivermanagement ismainlydonebyusingcertaintypesofmodelstounderstandandcontrolofchanges.TheseedofsuchcommitmentisunmistakablybeingplantedinthishydrologytrainingattheNSI.Beyondsuchtechnicalmodels,alsocoveredbymodelsofthinkingsuchasthestrongbeliefthatfloodisa‘disaster’insteadofanaturalphenomenon(seeNikula2008).Notonlythecaseofflood,waterscarcityisalsointriguingexampleofhowthetechnocraticpointofviewhasgeneralizedandsimplifiedsuchnaturalphenomenaas‘technicalproblem’henceappliestechnicalknowledgetosolution(LebelandSinh2007;Molle2007a).Thiskindofthinkingmayalsorelatetothevalue,circulatedamongNSImembersintheirtrainingaswellastheircommunicationoutsidetheclass,whichKuhnconsideredtobeanotheraspectinsustainingscientificparadigmwithintheircommunity.

Thesiteofscientificproductionliketheclassroomandlaboratorymentionedaboveisverycrucialinunderstandingthewayscientificparadigmisconstructed,confirmed,andinstalledinthementalityoffellowwaterscientists.Itiswithinthesespacesthatstudentslearnthequestionstobeasked,theappropriatemethodsoftacklingproblems,theacceptedcodesofinterpretationaswellastheveryplacewheretheyaresocializedinto


theirrespectivescientificcommunities(Livingstone2003).Nextsection,thearticlefurtherinvestigatestheproductsofhydrologicalscienceandthewaystheyaremanipulatedintheexternalusebeyondscienceclassroomsandlaboratories.

Hydrological Mapping and Classification: Beyond Stable Charted Water Theveryconceptof‘riverbasin’tomostofthepeopleseemsas

a‘natural’or‘given’geographicalfeatureonearth’slandscape.Itisanacceptedideaingeophysicalscienceaswellasnaturalresourcemanage-mentthatrarely,ifnotneveratall,beenquestionedorproblematized.Thisarticle,however,arguesthattheveryconceptof‘riverbasin’aswellasotheralliedconceptsofriverclassificationsareinfactamatterofsociallyconstructedtechnologyofwaterscience.Bytracingbacktoitsderiva-tionandapplicationinpresentusage,itshowspoliticalandsociologicalagendasbehindthepresumptiveconceptof‘natural’riverclassificationinhydrologicalknowledgeandpractices.

Itwasinthelaterhalfofthe19thcenturythattheconceptofriverbasinwasintroducedasaknowledgesysteminordertocopewiththecomplexityofflowingwatercourse.Theconfigurativeschemeinmappingandidentifyingriver’sgeographicalfeatureswasmainlyderivedfromtheverybelief inhuman’sdesireandcapability inknowing,managingandevencontrolling‘wasted’runoffrivers,especiallythelargeones.Theideainseeingriversaspivotalresourcesoftheindustrialrevolution,promotedbyscientistsandpolitical leadersincountriesparticularlySpain,FranceandtheUnitedStates,ledtothecrucialstepinnaturalhistoryinsubdu-ingnatural runningriversand, tocertainextent,amountedtowesternmissionsincolonizationandpromotionofscientisminotherpartsoftheworld(Molle2007b).

AhydrographicsurveyofthelowerMekongbasinwasinitiatedin1961withtheaimtoprovideinformationinfacilitatingaplanofmainstream

rivernavigation(Jacobs1996).Theemphasiswasthentomapoutcharac-teristicsofriverbedconfigurationandgeo-morphologicalfeaturesindifferentsitesalongtheriver.Seeingthesignificanceoflarge-scale,year-roundrivernavigationasastimulationofregionaleconomy,theMekongSecretariatwasinvolvedinupdatinghydrographicalinformationinthelate1980sandearly1990s.Inadditiontotheunderstandingofriverbedtransformation,theMekongSecretariathasgivenattentiontoaccumulatingdataonrainfallsandrunoffthroughoutthebasin.Thiscanbeconsideredasoneofthemost persistent achievement of theMRC in preparing the region forhydrologicalengineeringprojectstobeimplementedinthefuture.Bytheearly1990s,atleast450hydrologicalgaugingstationswereestablishedalongwithmorethan340meteorologicalstationsinstalled(Jacobs1996)tocopewithbasin-wideclimaticandhydraulicchanges.

Scientific knowledge and practice not only have been shapedbyregionalfactorssuchaspoliticalandeconomicfluxesasmentionedearlier,theyhavealsobeen instrumental infashioningregional identity(Livingstone2003).TheclassificationofriverbasinintermsofboundedupperandlowerMekongallowsriparianstatestocooperatewithinthelogicofterritorializedriverscapeinsteadofthewholeriverbasin.ItcanbesaidthattheseparationofMekongriverbasinintotwosub-basins,representedbyandlargethroughMRCmaps,isnotprimarilybasedontherealnatureofriverfeature.Rather,sincethebeginningofitsestablishment,itwaspoliticalbackdropofformercolonizedstatesandThailandthatcouldpermitcooperationforrivermanagement,whiletheupperstreaminChinaterritorywasleftoutduetoitsdistinctivepoliticalideology.Onlyonce‘LowerMekongBasin’isterritoriallyidentifiedandvirtuallydesignatedbymaps, theemergingpolitical aspirationalongwith regionalcooperationandtechnicaloperationscouldthenfollow.


Aswe have seen from the early development of theMekongregion,thedivisionofMekongintodistinctiveupperandlowerbasinpartswascrucialmeantnotonly formakingsharedregional identityamongmembersstateswateredbythedownstreamMekong.Butthedivisionofriverbasinalsoencouragedothernon-riparianstatesandorganizationstogetinvolveintransferringtheirmoderntechnologiesandknowledgeintothelowerregionwithconfidence.Thedividebetweenupperandlowerbasinprovidelegitimatelogicofmanagingtheriverexclusivelyatlowerbasinwithoutmuchconsiderationofwhatwasgoingonupstream. Inotherwords,mapproduction,aswellasotherscientificendeavorsthatfollows,imposeatoncerationalorderontheseeminglychaosnature.Thisgivegovernmentsandregionalorganizationasenseofterritorialcoherenceandhencesupplytechnicalsciencepractitionerswithgeographicalbound-aryessentialforstimulatingeconomicgrowth,exploitingresources,andevenmaintainingregionallogictodefensepoliticalthreatsfromoutside(Livingstone2003).

Hydrological Modeling: Seeing River for Water Inrivermanagement,itisoftenthatscientificknowledgepredomi-

natesdecision-makingandpolicyimplementation,hencehydrologistsarethemainactorindealingwith‘technical’accountinproducingandjustifyingknowledge. Taking the currentMekongdevelopment for example, themainstreamapproachinunderstandingrivermorphology,ecology,anditsrelatedappliedknowledgeconcerningresourcemanagementamongtheriver‘experts’hasmainlyfocusedonstudiesofscientifichydrologyasabasisinriverdevelopmentprojectssuchasdams,irrigation,andrivernavigation.Theknowledgeforriverbasindevelopmenthascenteredondevelopingnumericalsimulation‘models’ofhydrologicalprocess.Computersimulationshavebecomeacommonmethodologyinenvironmentalsciencesinwhichitcanbeusedasaframeworkforformulatingandtestingtheoriesaswellastomakepredictionsforpracticalapplicationsinresponseto

demandsfrompolicyanddecisionmakers(Beven2002).Manyhydrologicaltechniquesandmodelsareconcernedwiththemeasurement,correlationandprediction.Modelsmainlyinvolvethemonitoringofwaterqualityandquantity.Thecriteriausedtoidentifywaterqualityaretemperature,oxygensolubility,turbidity,andchemicalcontaminationwhilequantifiableaspectofwaterlooksmainlyforrainfallandriverrunoff.MostofthehydrologicalmodelsdevelopedforMekongriverbasinmanagementarebaseduponthe knowledge gained from such data of physical approximation andcomputationalunderstandingoftheriver.

TheparadigmofscientifichydrologyinThailandandtheMekongbasinasawholeis,sincethebeginning,framedwiththehydrodynamictechnicalmethodsandengineeringapproachdominatedbygovernment’sirrigationdepartmentandMRCscientific-trainedhydrologicalexperts.Thedatacollectedasinputsforhydrologicalmodelsareprimarilyconcernedwith the measurement of mainstream flows and discharge, riverbankflood,rainfall,sedimentload,waterdiversion,andchemicalandwellasbiologicalcomponentssuchasdissolvedhydrogen,nutrientsandaquaticanimalsinthewater.Thehydraulicmodelisasetofmethodologiesandsimulation tools tounderstand thenatureandpredictchanges in rivergeography,inparticularareawhilethehydrologicalmodelmayinvolveslargerspaceofcatchmentsorbasin.Typically,mostofthedatausedandtheapplicationofeachmodelwillbelimitedtolocationspecificityofeachsectionofriverbasinclassifiedassub-basinsortributaries.Eachpartoftheriverwillbeappliedwithdifferentmodelsandtechniquesdependingonthepriorityorsignificanceoftheproblemsbeingmanaged,suchasflood,hydropower,fishery,navigation,andirrigation.Inaddition,modelsaredesignedtouseselectedscientificmethodologiestofitthepurposeofaparticulardevelopmentproject.Forexample,thehydrologicalmodelofrainfall-runofftype,involvingmathematicaldataandcalculationthatreflectcatchmentsstorageandtheamountandtimingoftherunoffresponse,wouldbeusedforhydropowerdamandirrigationprojects.


Thefirstuseofmathematicalmodels,developedbytheSecretariatofMekongInterimCommittee,wassuccessfullyintroducedin1979.CalledDELTAandTIDALmodels,thesetwomodelingsystemsweredesignedtoforecastwaterlevels,dischargeandsalinityinthedeltaareaduringthedryseason(Thammongkol1986).Withsupportofseveraldevelop-mentagencies,manycomputer-basedmodelshavebeendevelopedovertheyearstodescribethehydrologyandhydraulicsoftheriveranditsgeographicalchangesoftheMekongbasin.During2002-2004,theMRChas developed its own package called ‘Decision Support Framework’(DSF)toselectandcalibratethemodelsforMekongriverbasindevelop-mentunderitsWaterUtilizationProject(WUP).TheDSFitselfisfundedbytheGlobalEnvironmentFacilitythroughtheWorldBank.ThisDSFisconsideredbytheMRCas‘apowerfulanalyticaltoolforunderstandingthebehavioroftheriverbasinandformakingplanningdecisionsonhowbesttomanageitswaterandrelatednaturalresources’(MRC2005b).TheDSFsystemismadeupofthreemainelements:KnowledgeBase,SimulationModel,andImpactAnalysisTools.TheKnowledgeBasepartcontaininginformationonthehistoricalandexistingresourcesandishoped,asclaimedbyMRC, tocollect relevant informationonsocio-economicandenvironmental conditionsandpredictionofhow thesituationmaychangeinthefuture.ApackageofSimulationModelsisusedtopredictthepossibleimpactsofchangeswithinthebasinontheriversystem.ThelastelementofDSFisasetofImpactAnalysisToolswhicharesetforpredictionof impacts response tochanges in riversystem.WithintheMRC’sDecisionSupportFramework,unfortunately, the integrationofalternativemethodstohydrologicalknowledge,especiallythosearisenfromsocio-culturalperspectives, isvery limited.Thosesociallyrelevantmodesofwaterknowledge,thoughwidelyexpressedandpromotedbyacademicsfromseveraldifferentfields,NGOs,media,andlocalpeoples5,arestillfindingitswaytobemergedintothemainstreamhydrologicalknowledgeinregionaldevelopmentcircle.

Recently,agroupofhydrologistsworking inthe lowerMekongbasinhasexpressedtheirconcernthatmathematicalmodelsandtheirresultsareoftenmistrusted,underutilized,ormisused inmanagementanddecisionmaking.Forthis,theroleofmodelsinwatermanagementseemstobebothcontroversialandunclear(Sarkkulaetal.2007)Inad-dition,severalhydrologistsandotheracademicsworkingontheissuesofMekongwatermanagementassertedthatsomescientificinformationnowadaysaresimplifiedandmisusedbyfellowexpertsandpolicymakers.Injustifyingfeasibilityandimpactsofriverdevelopmentprojects,peopleoftenlookfor‘simpletruths’inunderstandingthecomplexitiesofnaturalworld,hencecreatingwhattheycalled‘modernmyths’oftheMekonghydrologicalknowledge(Kummuetal.2008).Suchmodernmythscoverwide ranges of information and technical knowledge in relationswithhydrologysuchasflowalteration,bankerosion,floods,aswellastheapplicationofhydrologytodevelopmentpracticessuchastheissuesofdam,populationandintegratedwaterresourcemanagement.Ontopofthat,thoughchoosingtherighthydrologicalmethodologyandmodel isseeminglyamatteroftechnicalcalculation,but,infact,thedecisionofsuchchoicesinrealapplicationremainssubjecttodiversifiedvaluesandinterests(Imamura2007).Forthis,takingmorerealisticaccountofinherentuncertaintiesinmodelingtheenvironmentisnotonlyamatterofdevotinggreatereffortandcomputerresources,butalsoinvolvesavarietyofotherissuesinthesociologyofscience,policy,anddecision-making(Beven2001and2002).Inthissense,itisnotonlythetechnicalaspectthatmatters,butalsospiritualsideofitthatmakesmathematicalmodelingacceptableandsatisfactorytoall(Sarkkulaetal.2007).

Hydrology in Fluid Societal MorphologyAsthearticlehasrecountedcontextualaswellasbriefhistorical

developmentofMekonghydrologicalscience,itarguesthatthescientifichydrologicalknowledgeandpracticeneverenjoyitsstatusinregionaland


localculturalvacuum.Infact,therehasbeen,andstillare,ideological,social,economicaswellaspoliticalfactorsthatalwaysatworkinshapingtheproductionandarticulationofwaterscienceintheregion.Theveryideathatclaimsforthe‘placeless’ofscience--thattheenterpriseofscienceisuntouchedbylocalcondition--istrulyobsoletehere.Scientificknowledgeisalwaysmodifiedwhenitmovesanditistransformedasittravel(Livingstone2003)toservesomekindofpurposesoftheknowledgeprovidersorrecipientsespeciallyinsuchahighpoliticalstakeofMekongregion.Inshort,Mekonghydrologyisbyandlargeaveryhumanenterprisesituatedintimeandspaceofregionalmakingprocess.

Thearticlehaspointedoutthatknowledgeonwaterisepistemologi-callyandsociologicallyproblematic.Ifweapproachwaterissuesfromtheperspectiveofpositivists’scientificrelations,watermanagementnarrowlybecomesmeretechnicalmatters.But,infact,thereisalsoalandscapewheresocio-politicalfactorsplaycrucial,andubiquitous,roles(Chaiyan2006)indeterminingwhatshouldbedefinedasproblems,andwhatapproachesshouldbetakentotheproblemofwaterknowledgeproductionandpolicyimplementation.ToKuhn(1996),arevolutioninknowledgeinvolvesnotmerelyachangeinthegenerallawsbutalsoachangeinthewaytheworldisperceived,andachangeinthestandardsthatarebroughttobearinappraisingknowledge.Inthatsense,ifhydrologicalknowledgeintheMekongistobealteredfrommerelybasedonmainstreamscientificitytointegratetheveryaspectofsociologyintoknowledgeproductionandpractice, theopen-minded scientistswould be a very crucial agent ofchangeinallowingtheknowledgeintegrationtoreallyhappen.

Feyerabend,inhisbookScienceinaFreeSociety(1978),arguesagainstanymonolithicmethodtoknowledge.Heholdsthatanymethodol-ogy,includingscientificones,hasitslimitsandbiases,hencetraditionofthoughtandpracticeinwhichsomeparticularmethodissituatedshouldnotbesuppressednorshouldanyonemethodbecanonized(Feyerabend1978).Science,asFeyerabendexplicitlycontends,isinherentlynotsuperior

toanyotherkindsofknowledge.Infact,heproposesinhislaterworkthatknowledgecanbebothstableorinastateoffluxwhichisalsoavailableintheformofpublicbeliefsorresideinindividualsasanabilitytotreatnewsituationsinanimaginativeway(Feyerabend1988:161).ThisisakindofknowledgethatBergerandLuckmanntreatas‘common-sense’inhumanisticapproachinsociologyofknowledge(BergerandLuckmann1991).Thinkingofknowledgeinthatsense,itallowstheintegrationandliberalizationofmanysubordinatedknowledgesystemsthatdonotfitintoscientificparadigmintoconsideration.

Leévi-Strauss(1966and1978),amongmany,seesthepossibilityofintegrationofdiversifiedknowledgeforpracticalusageinsociety.Hesuggeststhatitisproductive,forexample,insteadofcontrastingmagicand science, to compliment them asmodes of acquiring knowledge.Bothscienceandmagicsuggest thesamesortofoperationsas theyboth approach thewaywe understand surrounding natures. For suchmatter,therearenofixedrationalcriteriaoftheoryevaluationbut,infact,theassessmentofknowledgestillgoesonwithvalues(Russell1983).Scientificreasoningisoneamongstothervaluesthatconstitutewhatwecanconsiderasknowledge,butnottheonlyone(Feyerabend1975).InFeyerabend’sAgainstMethod,hewrites(1975:305-306):

Everywhere science is enriched by unscientific methodsandunscientific results, ... theseparationofscienceandnon-science is not only artificial but also detrimental totheadvancementofknowledge.Ifwewanttounderstandnature,ifwewanttomasterourphysicalsurroundings,thenwemustuseallideas,allmethods,andnotjustasmallselectionofthem.

Asmentionedintheearlierpartofthisarticle,tofixhydrologicalknowledgebasedmerelyonscientificmethodologyasabenchmarkinrivermanagementisthenanunjusttreatmentoftherestofvariedknowledge


onwater.The roles of epistemology andmethodology to knowledge are

not only that they should guide practices but, vice versa, be guidedby practices (Feyerabend 1975). Social and physical environment arecrucialfactorsindeterminingtherelevanceandreasonsofexistencetoknowledgesystem.Thatis,knowledgeareproducedandchangedasaresultofdecisionsandactionswhichareinfluencedbycomplexsocialandmaterialsconditions(Feyerabend1975andRussell1983).Thecaseofaccumulatedlocalknowledgeonsurroundingecologicalsysteminrela-tionstopeople’suseofnaturalresourcesisanobviousexampleofhowknowledgeandpracticesarepragmaticallyinterwoven.Theknowledgeinthissenseisasourceofinformationthatdoesnotstandinisolationfromitscontextofpractices.Thearticulationof localknowledgeonnaturalresourceuse,forexample,doesnotrestricttoonlyonefixedmethodologytoknowledge,allowingwhatso-calledmethodologicalpluralismtopermitflexible,innovative,andevenimaginativeapproachesandopportunitiestocreateknowledge.Furthermore,scientificmethodologyshouldbeusedneithertodiscriminateotherformofexistingknowledgenortoprohibitnon-scientiststoactivelyinvolvethemselvesinscientificproductionandimplementationinoursociety.Itisveryimportant,asFeyerabend(1978)argues,wheneverscientificpracticeaffectsthewelfareofthelaypeople,thesocietyshouldbegivenapowertochallengeandexamineit.Forthat,Iargue,itisveryimportantforoursocietytounderstandthatnotmerely‘science’wouldonlychangetheworld.Rathertheworlditself,wherethe‘scientific’knowledgeisverymuchentangledinitsmulti-cultures,shouldcloselydeterminehowscienceistoberaisedinoursociety,and,needlesstosay,inrelationstootherformsofprevalentknowledge.

ThearticlehasinvestigatedsomecrucialaspectsinsociologyofhydrologicalknowledgeintheMekongregion.ThescienceofMekonghydrology,asthearticleshows,isalwaystheproductofspecifictimeandspaceswheresociologyofknowledgeplaysacrucialroleindetermining

itproductionanduse.Thesecriticalexaminationspointtotheargumentmadeattheearlystageofthisarticlethatthepresumptionofuniversalityandimpartialityofscientificknowledgeneedtobeseriouslytakenintoaccountas tounderstandhowcertainscientific-foundedschemefailedwhenundergoinghumanizedcontext.Thesoleacceptanceofscientifichydrologyasabenchmarkindefiningtheregionalwaterknowledgeatlargeisproblematic,andneedstobeaccompaniedbythoroughanalysisofculturalfactorsthatthisarticlehasunraveled.


Endnote1Thisworkingarticleispartofanongoingpostgraduateresearchentitled‘EthnohydrologyandtheMekongriverineresourcemanagement’.FinancialsupportisfromMekongProgramonWater,EnvironmentandResilience(M-POWER)

2PhDcandidate,ResourceManagementinAsia-PacificProgram,ResearchSchoolofPacificandAsianStudies,TheAustralianNationalUniversity.

3Myintentionhereistouse‘NormalScienceInstitution’asapseudonymtorepresentacademicinstitutionsthat,byandlarge,dealwithtechno-scienceinteaching,researching,anditspracticum.

4ThevicepresidentofItalian-ThaiDevelopment,Mr.ThaninBumrungsap,concurrentlydirectorofNamThuen2powercompanyinLaosandisinvolvedwithotherhydropowerprojectsinSouthAsia,isoneofthewell-recognizedalumniinvitedbytheinstitutiontogiveaspeechandshareexperiencesinwaterprojectbusinessduringthestudentorientationatthestartoftheacademicyear.

5Seesomevillagersresearchprojectsandpublicationsrelatedtotheir‘local’ riverineknowledgeathttp://www.livingriversiam.organdNGO’scampaignonwww.terraper.org

BibliographyBerger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann. 1991. The Social Construction

of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin Books.

Beven, Keith. 2001. ‘How far we can go in distributed hydrological model-ing?’ in Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 5: 1-12.

. 2002. ‘Toward a Coherent Philosophy for Modelling the Environ-ment’ in Proceedings:Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 458 (2026): 2465-2484.

Biswas, Asit. 1970. History of Hydrology. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.

Chaiyan Rajchagool. 2006. ‘The ADB’s Discourse on Poverty and Water’ in Diokno, Maria Serena I. and Nguyen Van Chinh (eds.), The Mekong Arranged & Rearranged. Chiang Mai: Mekong Press.

Crick, Malcolm. 1982. ‘Anthropology of Knowledge’ in Annual Reviews of Anthropology, 11: 287-313.

Feyerabend, Paul. 1975. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.

. 1978. Science in a Free Society. New York: Schocken. . 1988. ‘Knowledge and the Role of Theories’ in Philosophy of the

Social Sciences, 18: 157-178. . 1989. ‘Realism and the Historicity of Knowledge’ in The Journal

of Philosophy, 86(8): 393-406. . 1996. ‘Theoreticians, Artists and Artisans’ in Leonardo, 29(1):

23-28. Franklin, Sarah. 1995. ‘Science as Culture, Cultures of Science’ in

Annual Reviews of Anthropology, 24: 163-184. Imamura, Masao. 2007. ‘Introduction: Water Governance in the Mekong


Region’ in Louis Lebel, et al. (eds), Democratizing Water Gover-nance in the Mekong Region. Chiang Mai: Mekong Press.

Jacobs, Jeffrey. 1996. ‘Adjusting to Climate Change in the Lower Mekong’ in Global Environmental Change, (6)1: 7-22.

Kazmann, Raphael. 1972. Modern Hydrology. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

. 1999. ‘What is a laboratory?’ in Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Kuhn, Thomas. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd edi-tion. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Kummu, Matti, Marko Keskinen and Olli Varis (eds), 2008. Modern Myths of the Mekong: A Critical Review of Water and Devel-opment Concepts, Principles and Policies. Helsinki: Water & Development Publications – Helsinki University of Technology.

Latour, Bruno. 1983. ‘Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World’ in Karin D Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay, Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. London: Sage Publications.

. 1990. ‘Postmodern? No, Simply AMODERN! Steps towards an Anthropology of Science.’ in Studies in the History and Philoso-phy of Science, 21(1): 145-171.

Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. London: Sage Publications.

Lebel, Louis and Bach Tan Sinh. 2007. ‘Politics of Floods and Disasters’ in Louis Lebel, et al. (eds), Democratizing Water Governance in

the Mekong Region. Chiang Mai: Mekong Press.Leévi-Strauss, Claude. 1966. The Savage Mind. Chicago: The University

of Chicago Press. . 1978. Myth and Meaning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Livingstone, David. 2003. Putting Science in its Place: Geographies

of Scientific Knowledge. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Martin, Emily. 1998. ‘Anthropology and the Cultural Study of Science’ in Science, Technology & Human Values, 23(1): 24-44.

Mekong River Commission. 2005a. Overview of the Hydrology of the Mekong Basin. Vientiane: Mekong River Commission.

. 2005b. Modeled Impacts of Scoping Development Scenarios in the Lower Mekong Basin. Vientiane: Mekong River Commis-sion.

Merton, Robert. 1937. ‘The Sociology of Knowledge’ in Isis, 27 (3): 493-503.

Molle, François. 2007a. ‘Irrigation and Water Policies: Trends and Chal-lenges’ in Louis Lebel, et al. (eds), Democratizing Water Gover-nance in the Mekong Region. Chiang Mai: Mekong Press.

. 2007b. ‘River Basin Development: Lessons to be Learnt from History’ in Exploring Water Future Together: Mekong Region Waters Dialogue, Resource articles from regional dialogue. Vientiane: IUCN, TEI, IWMI, and M-POWER.

Nikula, Jussi. 2008. ‘Is Harm and Destruction All That Floods Bring?’ in Kummu, Matti, Marko Keskinen and Olli Varis (eds), Modern Myths of the Mekong: A Critical Review of Water and Devel-opment Concepts, Principles and Policies. Helsinki: Water & Development Publications – Helsinki University of Technology.

Russell, Denise. 1983. ‘Anything Goes’ in Social Studies of Science,

462 วารสารศิลปศาสตร์

13(3): 437-464. Sarkkula, Juha, et al. 2007. ‘Mathematical Modeling in Integrated

Management of Water Resources: Magical Tool, Mathematical Toy or Something in Between?’ in Louis Lebel, et al. (eds), Democra-tizing Water Governance in the Mekong Region. Chiang Mai: Mekong Press.

Thammongkol, T. 1986. ‘Centralized Basinwide River Forecasting for the Lower Mekong Basin’ in Natural Resources Forum, 10(2): 181-183.

The Times. 1968b. ‘Envoy to Dispel SE Asia Fears’, The Times, 17 September, page 7.

Woolgar, Steve. 1982. ‘Laboratory Studies: A Comment on the State of the Art’, Social Studies of Science, 12(4): 481-498.

. 1988. Science: The Very Idea. London and Sussex: Tavistock Publications Limited and Ellis Horwood Limited.

World Bank (WB). 2004. Modeled Observations on Development Scenarios in the Lower Mekong Basin. Vientiane: World Bank.

when an anthropologist meets hydrologists: a reflection on the … an... · 2014-03-09 ·...

Documents