{"title":"策划更广泛的标准:研发联盟中人种学干预的三个案例","authors":"Martina Klausner, J. Niewöhner, T. Seitz","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2022.2158073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n Aligning technological innovation with societal needs is a key concern for knowledge economies. Integrating ethical, legal, and social inquiry into research and development consortia that drive innovation processes has thus become common practice. Ethnographic research in consortia is one such practice. Here, these cover three cases of open ethnographic engagement within R&D consortia in the field of medical and rehabilitation technology. Rather than executing a preconfigured plan, these ethnographic intraventions explored emerging frictions that arose from observant participation within the fast science of dominant workflows in technological R&D. Curating these emerging frictions within the consortia produced what Ludwig Fleck called ‘Widerstandsavisos’, or signals of resistance. Widerstandsavisos disrupt dominant workflows by introducing methodological openness, fostering critical reflection on sampling approaches, placing the focus on actual practices, and engaging in anthropological concept work. The curation of Widerstandsavisos fosters reflexive awareness among members of consortia and opens a space for mutual learning: to produce new knowledge, alter problem framings, and reshape devices. Advancing ongoing discussions on midstream modulation, situated interventions and multimodal anthropology, such ethnographic intraventions present a different means of generating the capacity to address societal needs as well as responsibilities and relevance from within such consortia rather than as strategic interventions from the outside. Intraventions are, however, a risky practice as they produce ethnographic excess that is not easily controlled or directed within the bounds of R&D consortia. This uncertainty is a form of creativity that should be encouraged.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"32 1","pages":"190 - 213"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Curating the Widerstandsaviso: three cases of ethnographic intravention in R&D consortia\",\"authors\":\"Martina Klausner, J. Niewöhner, T. Seitz\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09505431.2022.2158073\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT\\n Aligning technological innovation with societal needs is a key concern for knowledge economies. Integrating ethical, legal, and social inquiry into research and development consortia that drive innovation processes has thus become common practice. Ethnographic research in consortia is one such practice. Here, these cover three cases of open ethnographic engagement within R&D consortia in the field of medical and rehabilitation technology. Rather than executing a preconfigured plan, these ethnographic intraventions explored emerging frictions that arose from observant participation within the fast science of dominant workflows in technological R&D. Curating these emerging frictions within the consortia produced what Ludwig Fleck called ‘Widerstandsavisos’, or signals of resistance. Widerstandsavisos disrupt dominant workflows by introducing methodological openness, fostering critical reflection on sampling approaches, placing the focus on actual practices, and engaging in anthropological concept work. The curation of Widerstandsavisos fosters reflexive awareness among members of consortia and opens a space for mutual learning: to produce new knowledge, alter problem framings, and reshape devices. Advancing ongoing discussions on midstream modulation, situated interventions and multimodal anthropology, such ethnographic intraventions present a different means of generating the capacity to address societal needs as well as responsibilities and relevance from within such consortia rather than as strategic interventions from the outside. Intraventions are, however, a risky practice as they produce ethnographic excess that is not easily controlled or directed within the bounds of R&D consortia. This uncertainty is a form of creativity that should be encouraged.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47064,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science As Culture\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"190 - 213\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science As Culture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2158073\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CULTURAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science As Culture","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2158073","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Curating the Widerstandsaviso: three cases of ethnographic intravention in R&D consortia
ABSTRACT
Aligning technological innovation with societal needs is a key concern for knowledge economies. Integrating ethical, legal, and social inquiry into research and development consortia that drive innovation processes has thus become common practice. Ethnographic research in consortia is one such practice. Here, these cover three cases of open ethnographic engagement within R&D consortia in the field of medical and rehabilitation technology. Rather than executing a preconfigured plan, these ethnographic intraventions explored emerging frictions that arose from observant participation within the fast science of dominant workflows in technological R&D. Curating these emerging frictions within the consortia produced what Ludwig Fleck called ‘Widerstandsavisos’, or signals of resistance. Widerstandsavisos disrupt dominant workflows by introducing methodological openness, fostering critical reflection on sampling approaches, placing the focus on actual practices, and engaging in anthropological concept work. The curation of Widerstandsavisos fosters reflexive awareness among members of consortia and opens a space for mutual learning: to produce new knowledge, alter problem framings, and reshape devices. Advancing ongoing discussions on midstream modulation, situated interventions and multimodal anthropology, such ethnographic intraventions present a different means of generating the capacity to address societal needs as well as responsibilities and relevance from within such consortia rather than as strategic interventions from the outside. Intraventions are, however, a risky practice as they produce ethnographic excess that is not easily controlled or directed within the bounds of R&D consortia. This uncertainty is a form of creativity that should be encouraged.
期刊介绍:
Our culture is a scientific one, defining what is natural and what is rational. Its values can be seen in what are sought out as facts and made as artefacts, what are designed as processes and products, and what are forged as weapons and filmed as wonders. In our daily experience, power is exercised through expertise, e.g. in science, technology and medicine. Science as Culture explores how all these shape the values which contend for influence over the wider society. Science mediates our cultural experience. It increasingly defines what it is to be a person, through genetics, medicine and information technology. Its values get embodied and naturalized in concepts, techniques, research priorities, gadgets and advertising. Many films, artworks and novels express popular concerns about these developments. In a society where icons of progress are drawn from science, technology and medicine, they are either celebrated or demonised. Often their progress is feared as ’unnatural’, while their critics are labelled ’irrational’. Public concerns are rebuffed by ostensibly value-neutral experts and positivist polemics. Yet the culture of science is open to study like any other culture. Cultural studies analyses the role of expertise throughout society. Many journals address the history, philosophy and social studies of science, its popularisation, and the public understanding of society.