在基本框架中定位专家

J. Hochschild
{"title":"在基本框架中定位专家","authors":"J. Hochschild","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 6 examines how various categories of experts fit in the quadrants of the basic framework, and why. It uses three sources of evidence: a coded database of almost 2,000 genomics-related articles by legal scholars and social scientists in thirteen disciplines; two online, open-ended surveys of several hundred social science experts who responded to questions organized around the basic framework; and almost sixty in-person, open-ended interviews with genomics experts, many in positions of public authority. The chapter shows that the most methodologically individualist and most scientific social science disciplines are especially likely to fall into the “Enthusiastic” quadrant, whereas the most humanistic are least likely to do so. Individual experts range across the cells of the basic typology, with views ultimately resting on judgments about humans’ capacity to learn and to act for the good of others.","PeriodicalId":429620,"journal":{"name":"Genomic Politics","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Locating Experts in the Basic Framework\",\"authors\":\"J. Hochschild\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Chapter 6 examines how various categories of experts fit in the quadrants of the basic framework, and why. It uses three sources of evidence: a coded database of almost 2,000 genomics-related articles by legal scholars and social scientists in thirteen disciplines; two online, open-ended surveys of several hundred social science experts who responded to questions organized around the basic framework; and almost sixty in-person, open-ended interviews with genomics experts, many in positions of public authority. The chapter shows that the most methodologically individualist and most scientific social science disciplines are especially likely to fall into the “Enthusiastic” quadrant, whereas the most humanistic are least likely to do so. Individual experts range across the cells of the basic typology, with views ultimately resting on judgments about humans’ capacity to learn and to act for the good of others.\",\"PeriodicalId\":429620,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Genomic Politics\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Genomic Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genomic Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

第6章研究了不同类别的专家如何适应基本框架的象限,以及为什么。它使用了三个证据来源:一个编码数据库,包含13个学科的法律学者和社会科学家撰写的近2000篇基因组学相关文章;两项在线开放式调查,数百名社会科学专家回答了围绕基本框架组织的问题;并与基因组学专家进行了近60次面对面的开放式访谈,其中许多专家都是公共权威人士。本章表明,在方法论上最个人主义和最科学的社会科学学科特别有可能落入“热情”象限,而最人文主义的学科则最不可能这样做。个别专家的研究范围横跨基本类型学的各个细胞,他们的观点最终取决于对人类学习能力和为他人利益而行动能力的判断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Locating Experts in the Basic Framework
Chapter 6 examines how various categories of experts fit in the quadrants of the basic framework, and why. It uses three sources of evidence: a coded database of almost 2,000 genomics-related articles by legal scholars and social scientists in thirteen disciplines; two online, open-ended surveys of several hundred social science experts who responded to questions organized around the basic framework; and almost sixty in-person, open-ended interviews with genomics experts, many in positions of public authority. The chapter shows that the most methodologically individualist and most scientific social science disciplines are especially likely to fall into the “Enthusiastic” quadrant, whereas the most humanistic are least likely to do so. Individual experts range across the cells of the basic typology, with views ultimately resting on judgments about humans’ capacity to learn and to act for the good of others.
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