策划更广泛的标准:研发联盟中人种学干预的三个案例

IF 2.5 3区 哲学 Q1 CULTURAL STUDIES Science As Culture Pub Date : 2022-12-22 DOI:10.1080/09505431.2022.2158073
Martina Klausner, J. Niewöhner, T. Seitz
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

将技术创新与社会需求相结合是知识经济的一个关键问题。因此,将伦理、法律和社会调查整合到推动创新进程的研发联盟中已成为一种普遍做法。联合进行人种学研究就是这样一种实践。在这里,这些涵盖了在医疗和康复技术领域的研发联盟中开放的人种学参与的三个案例。这些民族志干预不是执行预先配置的计划,而是探索了在技术研发中主导工作流程的快速科学中观察参与所产生的新摩擦。在联盟内部策划这些新出现的摩擦产生了路德维希·弗莱克所说的“Widerstandsavisos”,或抵抗的信号。通过引入方法的开放性,培养对抽样方法的批判性反思,将重点放在实际实践上,以及从事人类学概念工作,广泛性专家打破了主导的工作流程。Widerstandsavisos的管理促进了联盟成员之间的反思意识,并为相互学习开辟了一个空间:产生新的知识,改变问题框架,重塑设备。这种民族志干预推动了正在进行的关于中游调节、定位干预和多模态人类学的讨论,提供了一种不同的方法,可以从这种联盟内部产生解决社会需求以及责任和相关性的能力,而不是从外部进行战略干预。然而,静脉注射是一种危险的做法,因为它们会产生人种学上的过量,不容易控制或在研发联盟的范围内指导。这种不确定性是一种应该受到鼓励的创造力。
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
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.
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
Science As Culture
Science As Culture Multiple-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.80%
发文量
28
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.
期刊最新文献
Reading meatphors in DNA (and RNA): a bio-rhetorical view of genetic text metaphors Outposts of science: placing scientific infrastructures at the margins of French (post)colonial territories Staging interactivity: platform logics at the participatory museum An anticipatory regime of multiplanetary life: on SpaceX, Martian colonisation and terrestrial ruin Strategic science performance and the illusion of consensus about Fukushima’s health effects
×
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