科技多元合作:回顾知识系统、文化、规范和工作方式

IF 3.1 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL ISSUES Science Technology & Human Values Pub Date : 2022-10-10 DOI:10.1177/01622439221124663
Saul Halfon, B. Sovacool
{"title":"科技多元合作:回顾知识系统、文化、规范和工作方式","authors":"Saul Halfon, B. Sovacool","doi":"10.1177/01622439221124663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper challenges the language of “interdisciplinarity,” suggesting “pluralistic collaboration” as a better alternative. Interdisciplinarity, team science, and transdisciplinarity frame academic and problem-focused collaborations narrowly, overemphasizing epistemology, downplaying extra-disciplinary divides and nonacademic collaborators, and either ignoring or psychologizing individual-level phenomena. We first paint a picture of the tensions and divides that exist in pluralistic collaborations, in three dimensions—epistemic, cultural, and normative—using a series of literature reviews to simultaneously map and extend these dimensions. We then introduce and explore a fourth dimension—academic work styles. Individual level considerations of collaboration in the literature generally rely on psychological types. We explore what a more sociologically oriented approach to individual dynamics within collaborations would look like by identifying and exploring four general academic work styles: isolationist, imperialist, pragmatist, and pluralist. We conclude by emphasizing and reflecting on pluralistic collaboration. Pluralism exists along a range of dimensions, and pluralizing or homogenizing different dimensions (pluralizing pluralism) can produce diverse effects on the outcome of interdisciplinary collaboration. While we thus advocate for pluralism along a greater range of dimensions when addressing complex problems, we suggest that over-pluralization can be a problem.","PeriodicalId":48083,"journal":{"name":"Science Technology & Human Values","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pluralistic Collaboration in Science and Technology: Reviewing Knowledge Systems, Culture, Norms, and Work Styles\",\"authors\":\"Saul Halfon, B. Sovacool\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01622439221124663\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper challenges the language of “interdisciplinarity,” suggesting “pluralistic collaboration” as a better alternative. Interdisciplinarity, team science, and transdisciplinarity frame academic and problem-focused collaborations narrowly, overemphasizing epistemology, downplaying extra-disciplinary divides and nonacademic collaborators, and either ignoring or psychologizing individual-level phenomena. We first paint a picture of the tensions and divides that exist in pluralistic collaborations, in three dimensions—epistemic, cultural, and normative—using a series of literature reviews to simultaneously map and extend these dimensions. We then introduce and explore a fourth dimension—academic work styles. Individual level considerations of collaboration in the literature generally rely on psychological types. We explore what a more sociologically oriented approach to individual dynamics within collaborations would look like by identifying and exploring four general academic work styles: isolationist, imperialist, pragmatist, and pluralist. We conclude by emphasizing and reflecting on pluralistic collaboration. Pluralism exists along a range of dimensions, and pluralizing or homogenizing different dimensions (pluralizing pluralism) can produce diverse effects on the outcome of interdisciplinary collaboration. While we thus advocate for pluralism along a greater range of dimensions when addressing complex problems, we suggest that over-pluralization can be a problem.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48083,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science Technology & Human Values\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science Technology & Human Values\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439221124663\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL ISSUES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Technology & Human Values","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439221124663","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇论文挑战了“跨学科”的语言,建议“多元合作”是一个更好的选择。跨学科、团队科学和跨学科将学术和以问题为中心的合作狭隘地框定了框架,过度强调认识论,淡化学科外的分歧和非学术合作者,忽视或心理化个人层面的现象。我们首先从三个维度——认知、文化和规范——描绘出多元合作中存在的紧张和分歧,并使用一系列文献综述来同时描绘和扩展这些维度。然后,我们介绍并探讨了第四个维度——学术工作风格。文献中对合作的个人层面考虑通常依赖于心理类型。通过识别和探索四种一般的学术工作风格:孤立主义、帝国主义、实用主义和多元主义,我们探索了一种更以社会学为导向的合作中个人动态的方法。最后,我们强调并反思多元合作。多元主义存在于一系列维度上,多元化或同质化不同维度(多元主义)会对跨学科合作的结果产生不同的影响。因此,虽然我们主张在解决复杂问题时在更大范围内实行多元化,但我们认为过度多元化可能是一个问题。
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
Pluralistic Collaboration in Science and Technology: Reviewing Knowledge Systems, Culture, Norms, and Work Styles
This paper challenges the language of “interdisciplinarity,” suggesting “pluralistic collaboration” as a better alternative. Interdisciplinarity, team science, and transdisciplinarity frame academic and problem-focused collaborations narrowly, overemphasizing epistemology, downplaying extra-disciplinary divides and nonacademic collaborators, and either ignoring or psychologizing individual-level phenomena. We first paint a picture of the tensions and divides that exist in pluralistic collaborations, in three dimensions—epistemic, cultural, and normative—using a series of literature reviews to simultaneously map and extend these dimensions. We then introduce and explore a fourth dimension—academic work styles. Individual level considerations of collaboration in the literature generally rely on psychological types. We explore what a more sociologically oriented approach to individual dynamics within collaborations would look like by identifying and exploring four general academic work styles: isolationist, imperialist, pragmatist, and pluralist. We conclude by emphasizing and reflecting on pluralistic collaboration. Pluralism exists along a range of dimensions, and pluralizing or homogenizing different dimensions (pluralizing pluralism) can produce diverse effects on the outcome of interdisciplinary collaboration. While we thus advocate for pluralism along a greater range of dimensions when addressing complex problems, we suggest that over-pluralization can be a problem.
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
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
6.50%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: As scientific advances improve our lives, they also complicate how we live and react to the new technologies. More and more, human values come into conflict with scientific advancement as we deal with important issues such as nuclear power, environmental degradation and information technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values is a peer-reviewed, international, interdisciplinary journal containing research, analyses and commentary on the development and dynamics of science and technology, including their relationship to politics, society and culture.
期刊最新文献
A Sustainable City Made By Resident-Experts - How Designerly Intervention Enacted Rights of the Public and Urban Infrastructure What's in the Blood? Temporalities at Play in Diet-Related Risk Management Testing Practices Underground Roots for Ancestral Futures: Exploring Lithium Through an Experimental Alliance between Chemistry and Anthropology Reflections on an Inclusive Boundary Worker Out of Sync: The Making and Remaking of Data and Regulations on Greenhouse Gases at the International Maritime Organization
×
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