扮演角色,经历困境:SSH学者在公共参与中的挑战

IF 1.1 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Nanoethics Pub Date : 2021-08-18 DOI:10.1007/s11569-021-00394-8
Schuijer, Jantien Willemijn, Broerse, Jacqueline, Kupper, Frank
{"title":"扮演角色,经历困境:SSH学者在公共参与中的挑战","authors":"Schuijer, Jantien Willemijn, Broerse, Jacqueline, Kupper, Frank","doi":"10.1007/s11569-021-00394-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The progressive introduction of emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology, has created a true testing ground for public engagement initiatives. Widespread experimentation has taken place with public and stakeholder dialogue and inclusive approaches to research and innovation (R&amp;I) more generally. Against this backdrop, Social Science and Humanities (SSH) scholars have started to manifest themselves differently. They have taken on new roles in the public engagement field, including more practical and policy-oriented ones that seek to actively open the R&amp;I system to wider public scrutiny. With public engagement gaining prominence, there has been a call for increased reflexivity among SSH scholars about their role in this field. In this paper, we study our own roles and stakes as SSH scholars in a European-funded public engagement project on responsible nanotechnology. We introduce a general role landscape and outline five distinct roles (engaged academic<i>,</i> deliberative practitioner<i>,</i> change agent<i>,</i> dialogue capacity builder<i>,</i> and project worker) that we—as SSH scholars—inhabited throughout the project. We discuss the synergistic potential of combining these five roles and elaborate on several tensions within the roles that we needed to navigate. We argue that balancing many roles requires explicit role awareness, reflexivity, and new competencies that have not been examined much in the public engagement literature so far. Our role landscape and exemplification of how it can be used to reflexively study one’s own practices may be a useful starting point for scholars who are seeking to better understand, assess, or communicate about their position in the public engagement field.</p>","PeriodicalId":18802,"journal":{"name":"Nanoethics","volume":"4 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Juggling Roles, Experiencing Dilemmas: The Challenges of SSH Scholars in Public Engagement\",\"authors\":\"Schuijer, Jantien Willemijn, Broerse, Jacqueline, Kupper, Frank\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11569-021-00394-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The progressive introduction of emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology, has created a true testing ground for public engagement initiatives. Widespread experimentation has taken place with public and stakeholder dialogue and inclusive approaches to research and innovation (R&amp;I) more generally. Against this backdrop, Social Science and Humanities (SSH) scholars have started to manifest themselves differently. They have taken on new roles in the public engagement field, including more practical and policy-oriented ones that seek to actively open the R&amp;I system to wider public scrutiny. With public engagement gaining prominence, there has been a call for increased reflexivity among SSH scholars about their role in this field. In this paper, we study our own roles and stakes as SSH scholars in a European-funded public engagement project on responsible nanotechnology. We introduce a general role landscape and outline five distinct roles (engaged academic<i>,</i> deliberative practitioner<i>,</i> change agent<i>,</i> dialogue capacity builder<i>,</i> and project worker) that we—as SSH scholars—inhabited throughout the project. We discuss the synergistic potential of combining these five roles and elaborate on several tensions within the roles that we needed to navigate. We argue that balancing many roles requires explicit role awareness, reflexivity, and new competencies that have not been examined much in the public engagement literature so far. Our role landscape and exemplification of how it can be used to reflexively study one’s own practices may be a useful starting point for scholars who are seeking to better understand, assess, or communicate about their position in the public engagement field.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18802,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nanoethics\",\"volume\":\"4 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nanoethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-021-00394-8\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nanoethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-021-00394-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

纳米技术等新兴技术的逐步引入,为公众参与倡议创造了一个真正的试验场。通过公众和利益相关者对话以及更广泛的研究和创新(R&I)包容性方法进行了广泛的实验。在这种背景下,社会科学和人文学科的学者们开始以不同的方式表现自己。它们在公众参与领域发挥了新的作用,包括更实际和面向政策的作用,寻求积极开放研发系统,接受更广泛的公众监督。随着公众参与的日益突出,人们呼吁SSH学者对他们在这一领域的角色进行更多的反思。在本文中,我们研究了我们自己作为SSH学者在欧洲资助的负责任纳米技术公众参与项目中的角色和利害关系。我们介绍了一个一般的角色景观,并概述了我们作为SSH学者在整个项目中所扮演的五个不同角色(参与学术、审议实践者、变革推动者、对话能力建设者和项目工作者)。我们将讨论结合这五个角色的协同潜力,并详细说明我们需要处理的角色之间的几个紧张关系。我们认为,平衡许多角色需要明确的角色意识、反身性和新的能力,这些在公众参与文献中尚未得到太多的研究。我们的角色景观和如何利用它来反思性研究自己的实践的例子,可能是一个有用的起点,对于那些寻求更好地理解、评估或沟通他们在公共参与领域的地位的学者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Juggling Roles, Experiencing Dilemmas: The Challenges of SSH Scholars in Public Engagement

The progressive introduction of emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology, has created a true testing ground for public engagement initiatives. Widespread experimentation has taken place with public and stakeholder dialogue and inclusive approaches to research and innovation (R&I) more generally. Against this backdrop, Social Science and Humanities (SSH) scholars have started to manifest themselves differently. They have taken on new roles in the public engagement field, including more practical and policy-oriented ones that seek to actively open the R&I system to wider public scrutiny. With public engagement gaining prominence, there has been a call for increased reflexivity among SSH scholars about their role in this field. In this paper, we study our own roles and stakes as SSH scholars in a European-funded public engagement project on responsible nanotechnology. We introduce a general role landscape and outline five distinct roles (engaged academic, deliberative practitioner, change agent, dialogue capacity builder, and project worker) that we—as SSH scholars—inhabited throughout the project. We discuss the synergistic potential of combining these five roles and elaborate on several tensions within the roles that we needed to navigate. We argue that balancing many roles requires explicit role awareness, reflexivity, and new competencies that have not been examined much in the public engagement literature so far. Our role landscape and exemplification of how it can be used to reflexively study one’s own practices may be a useful starting point for scholars who are seeking to better understand, assess, or communicate about their position in the public engagement field.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nanoethics
Nanoethics HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: NanoEthics: Ethics for Technologies that Converge at the Nanoscale will focus on the philosophically and scientifically rigorous examination of the ethical and societal considerations and the public and policy concerns inherent in nanotechnology research and development. These issues include both individual and societal problems, and include individual health, wellbeing and human enhancement, human integrity and autonomy, distribution of the costs and benefits, threats to culture and tradition and to political and economic stability. Additionally there are meta-issues including the neutrality or otherwise of technology, designing technology in a value-sensitive way, and the control of scientific research.
期刊最新文献
Normative Challenges of Risk Regulation of Artificial Intelligence An Integrated Embodiment Concept Combines Neuroethics and AI Ethics – Relational Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence, Emerging Neurotechnologies and the Future of Work Addressing Multiple Responsibilities in the Early Stages of R&D with Provenance Assessment Gene Editing Cattle for Enhancing Heat Tolerance: A Welfare Review of the “PRLR-SLICK Cattle” Case Representations of (Nano)technology in Comics from the ‘NanoKOMIK’ Project
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1