Extended peer communities: Creating good and fair knowledges

IF 3 3区 管理学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Simon P. Meisch
{"title":"Extended peer communities: Creating good and fair knowledges","authors":"Simon P. Meisch","doi":"10.1016/j.futures.2024.103455","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This conceptual paper reconstructs an implicit ethical claim of post-normal science, namely that knowledge produced in extended peer communities (EPCs) is both epistemically better <em>and</em> fairer. Post-normal science introduced EPCs to operationalise better quality knowledge for decision-making in conditions when facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent. In such contexts, traditional forms of quality assurance in science are bound to fail and even risk becoming the source of harm to people, their social and natural environment. Consequently, the community of peers assessing the quality of knowledge needs to be broadened to include a plurality of perspectives and epistemic communities. To date, post-normal scholarship has focused primarily on the epistemological side of EPCs. Building on this, this paper addresses the ethical side of EPCs. In doing so, it aims to make explicit a claim that has always been at the heart of post-normal scholarship, namely that the knowledge produced in EPCs is also more just. In doing so, the paper builds on the literature on epistemic (in)justice and in particular on work done by Kristie Dotson.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48239,"journal":{"name":"Futures","volume":"163 ","pages":"Article 103455"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724001381/pdfft?md5=bd93c25f112334cf8ce08f498dbc997a&pid=1-s2.0-S0016328724001381-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Futures","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724001381","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This conceptual paper reconstructs an implicit ethical claim of post-normal science, namely that knowledge produced in extended peer communities (EPCs) is both epistemically better and fairer. Post-normal science introduced EPCs to operationalise better quality knowledge for decision-making in conditions when facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent. In such contexts, traditional forms of quality assurance in science are bound to fail and even risk becoming the source of harm to people, their social and natural environment. Consequently, the community of peers assessing the quality of knowledge needs to be broadened to include a plurality of perspectives and epistemic communities. To date, post-normal scholarship has focused primarily on the epistemological side of EPCs. Building on this, this paper addresses the ethical side of EPCs. In doing so, it aims to make explicit a claim that has always been at the heart of post-normal scholarship, namely that the knowledge produced in EPCs is also more just. In doing so, the paper builds on the literature on epistemic (in)justice and in particular on work done by Kristie Dotson.

扩展同伴社区:创造良好和公平的知识
这篇概念性论文重构了后常态科学隐含的伦理主张,即在扩展同行社区(EPCs)中产生的知识在认识论上更好也更公平。后常态科学引入了 EPCs,以便在事实不确定、价值有争议、利害关系大和决策紧迫的情况下,为决策提供更高质量的知识。在这种情况下,传统形式的科学质量保证必然会失败,甚至有可能成为危害人类及其社会和自然环境的根源。因此,需要扩大评估知识质量的同行群体,纳入多元化的观点和认识论群体。迄今为止,后常态学术研究主要集中在 EPC 的认识论方面。在此基础上,本文探讨了 EPC 的伦理方面。在此过程中,本文旨在明确一个一直处于后常态学术核心的主张,即在 EPCs 中产生的知识也更加公正。为此,本文借鉴了有关认识论(不)公正的文献,特别是克里斯蒂-多特森(Kristie Dotson)的研究成果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Futures
Futures Multiple-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
124
期刊介绍: Futures is an international, refereed, multidisciplinary journal concerned with medium and long-term futures of cultures and societies, science and technology, economics and politics, environment and the planet and individuals and humanity. Covering methods and practices of futures studies, the journal seeks to examine possible and alternative futures of all human endeavours. Futures seeks to promote divergent and pluralistic visions, ideas and opinions about the future. The editors do not necessarily agree with the views expressed in the pages of Futures
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信