工程与发展之间的历史和思想鸿沟

E. Stribling
{"title":"工程与发展之间的历史和思想鸿沟","authors":"E. Stribling","doi":"10.1109/ISTAS50296.2020.9462230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Societal well-being is increasingly impacted by the social implications of new technologies, which are beyond the expertise of the global development scholars who study and craft regulations around them. The common solution of including engineers in the policymaking process is not enough to bridge these two knowledge fields due to their conflicting historical developments and resulting epistemologies. Global development originates from rebuilding Europe after WWII and “modernizing” the recently independent countries of the Global South. After incorporating critiques, development studies have shifted away from engineering, they are largely subjective in orientation, and they focus on poverty alleviation and social inclusion. Engineering has origins in military and business operations. Heavily scientific in orientation, it tends to exclude social metrics in the design process. Transdisciplinary concepts and emergent disciplines, such as humanitarian engineering and ICT4D, offer a way forward where scholars from disparate disciplines cross over to fully appreciate the unique contributions that the other side can offer.","PeriodicalId":196560,"journal":{"name":"2020 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS)","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Historical and Ideological Chasm between Engineering and Development\",\"authors\":\"E. Stribling\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ISTAS50296.2020.9462230\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Societal well-being is increasingly impacted by the social implications of new technologies, which are beyond the expertise of the global development scholars who study and craft regulations around them. The common solution of including engineers in the policymaking process is not enough to bridge these two knowledge fields due to their conflicting historical developments and resulting epistemologies. Global development originates from rebuilding Europe after WWII and “modernizing” the recently independent countries of the Global South. After incorporating critiques, development studies have shifted away from engineering, they are largely subjective in orientation, and they focus on poverty alleviation and social inclusion. Engineering has origins in military and business operations. Heavily scientific in orientation, it tends to exclude social metrics in the design process. Transdisciplinary concepts and emergent disciplines, such as humanitarian engineering and ICT4D, offer a way forward where scholars from disparate disciplines cross over to fully appreciate the unique contributions that the other side can offer.\",\"PeriodicalId\":196560,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2020 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS)\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2020 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISTAS50296.2020.9462230\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2020 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISTAS50296.2020.9462230","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

社会福祉越来越受到新技术的社会影响,这超出了研究和制定相关法规的全球发展学者的专业知识范围。将工程师纳入决策过程的常见解决方案不足以弥合这两个知识领域,因为它们相互冲突的历史发展和由此产生的认识论。全球发展源于二战后欧洲的重建和最近独立的全球南方国家的“现代化”。在纳入批评意见后,发展研究已经从工程学转向了很大程度上的主观性,它们的重点是减轻贫困和社会包容。工程学起源于军事和商业运作。它倾向于在设计过程中排除社交参数。跨学科概念和新兴学科,如人道主义工程和ICT4D,为来自不同学科的学者提供了一条前进的道路,使他们能够充分认识到对方可以提供的独特贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Historical and Ideological Chasm between Engineering and Development
Societal well-being is increasingly impacted by the social implications of new technologies, which are beyond the expertise of the global development scholars who study and craft regulations around them. The common solution of including engineers in the policymaking process is not enough to bridge these two knowledge fields due to their conflicting historical developments and resulting epistemologies. Global development originates from rebuilding Europe after WWII and “modernizing” the recently independent countries of the Global South. After incorporating critiques, development studies have shifted away from engineering, they are largely subjective in orientation, and they focus on poverty alleviation and social inclusion. Engineering has origins in military and business operations. Heavily scientific in orientation, it tends to exclude social metrics in the design process. Transdisciplinary concepts and emergent disciplines, such as humanitarian engineering and ICT4D, offer a way forward where scholars from disparate disciplines cross over to fully appreciate the unique contributions that the other side can offer.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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