"Are You a TA Practitioner, Then?" - Identity Constructions in Post-Normal Science.

IF 3.2 2区 哲学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Minerva Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1007/s11024-022-09480-x
Karen Kastenhofer, Anja Bauer
{"title":"\"Are You a TA Practitioner, Then?\" - Identity Constructions in Post-Normal Science.","authors":"Karen Kastenhofer,&nbsp;Anja Bauer","doi":"10.1007/s11024-022-09480-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Technology assessment (TA) is a paradigmatic case for the manifold and, at times, ambiguous processes of identity formation of researchers in inter- and transdisciplinary settings. TA combines the natural, technical, and social sciences and follows the multiple missions of scientific analysis, public outreach, and policy advice. However, despite this diversity, it also constitutes a genuine community with its own discourses, conferences, and publications. To which extent \"being a TA practitioner\" also provides for a genuine scholarly identity is still unclear. Building on interviews with technology assessment practitioners at an academic TA institute, we ask what inter/trans/disciplinary identification patterns emerge in this field. Our analysis shows that TA practitioners adopt multiple identities, from \"enthusiastic TA practitioner\" to \"strong interdisciplinarian\" or \"disciplinarian\" - with distinct identity troubles inherent in all these options. We find that generational affiliation plays a vital role in identity formation. It relates to different primary orientations (towards research or advisory practices), inter/disciplinary backgrounds, contracting modes, and lengths of time spent at the TA institute. We conclude firstly, that disciplinary categories figure strongly in transdisciplinary identities; secondly, that the relation of <i>chronos</i> and identity warrants more substantial consideration: as time spent at a transdisciplinary institute as or as perceived options for \"futuring one's identity\"; thirdly, that our understanding of academic generations could profit from a more sociological conception; and, fourthly, that TA's multidisciplinary setup and threefold orientation towards science, society, and policy result in multiplying possible identities and thus making it difficult to form a stable community.</p>","PeriodicalId":47427,"journal":{"name":"Minerva","volume":"61 1","pages":"93-115"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9918560/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09480-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Technology assessment (TA) is a paradigmatic case for the manifold and, at times, ambiguous processes of identity formation of researchers in inter- and transdisciplinary settings. TA combines the natural, technical, and social sciences and follows the multiple missions of scientific analysis, public outreach, and policy advice. However, despite this diversity, it also constitutes a genuine community with its own discourses, conferences, and publications. To which extent "being a TA practitioner" also provides for a genuine scholarly identity is still unclear. Building on interviews with technology assessment practitioners at an academic TA institute, we ask what inter/trans/disciplinary identification patterns emerge in this field. Our analysis shows that TA practitioners adopt multiple identities, from "enthusiastic TA practitioner" to "strong interdisciplinarian" or "disciplinarian" - with distinct identity troubles inherent in all these options. We find that generational affiliation plays a vital role in identity formation. It relates to different primary orientations (towards research or advisory practices), inter/disciplinary backgrounds, contracting modes, and lengths of time spent at the TA institute. We conclude firstly, that disciplinary categories figure strongly in transdisciplinary identities; secondly, that the relation of chronos and identity warrants more substantial consideration: as time spent at a transdisciplinary institute as or as perceived options for "futuring one's identity"; thirdly, that our understanding of academic generations could profit from a more sociological conception; and, fourthly, that TA's multidisciplinary setup and threefold orientation towards science, society, and policy result in multiplying possible identities and thus making it difficult to form a stable community.

“那么,你是助教从业者吗?”——后师范科学中的身份建构。
技术评估(TA)是研究人员在跨学科和跨学科环境中身份形成的多种多样的,有时是模糊的过程的典型案例。它结合了自然科学、技术科学和社会科学,并遵循科学分析、公众宣传和政策咨询的多重使命。然而,尽管这种多样性,它也构成了一个真正的社区,拥有自己的话语、会议和出版物。“作为一名助教从业者”在多大程度上也提供了一种真正的学者身份,目前尚不清楚。在与一家学术技术评估机构的技术评估从业人员的访谈基础上,我们询问在这个领域出现了哪些跨/跨/学科的识别模式。我们的分析表明,助教从业者采用了多种身份,从“热心的助教从业者”到“强跨学科的”或“学科的”,在所有这些选择中都存在着明显的身份问题。我们发现代际关系在身份形成中起着至关重要的作用。这与不同的主要方向(研究或咨询实践)、跨学科背景、合同模式以及在助教研究所度过的时间长短有关。我们首先得出结论,学科类别在跨学科认同中占有重要地位;其次,时间和身份的关系值得更多的考虑:作为在跨学科研究所度过的时间,或者作为“未来一个人的身份”的感知选项;第三,我们对学术代际的理解可以从更社会学的概念中受益;第四,TA的多学科设置和对科学、社会和政策的三重取向导致可能的身份倍增,从而难以形成一个稳定的社区。
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
Minerva
Minerva Multiple-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Minerva is devoted to the study of ideas, traditions, cultures and institutions in science, higher education and research. It is concerned no less with history than with present practice, and with the local as well as the global. It speaks to the scholar, the teacher, the policy-maker and the administrator. It features articles, essay reviews and ''special'' issues on themes of topical importance. It represents no single school of thought, but welcomes diversity, within the rules of rational discourse. Its contributions are peer-reviewed. Its audience is world-wide.
×
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