STS研究人员作为技术:作为参与者期望和议程解释的多重立场

Ashley Lewis
{"title":"STS研究人员作为技术:作为参与者期望和议程解释的多重立场","authors":"Ashley Lewis","doi":"10.28968/cftt.v9i2.39335","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Science and technology studies (STS) researchers integrated into interdisciplinary research projects learn important lessons of collaboration dynamics by analyzing the lived experience of the research participants. Previous approaches of STS researchers included laboratory studies and reimagining the collaborative process as a research method. However, previous research on interdisciplinary projects repeatedly cites recurring challenges, indicating that more sharing of this lived experience is needed. My autoethnography of an interdisciplinary project interrogates the various positionalities I embodied as research technologies. In adopting a feminist analytical approach, this paper forefronts emotional affect and interrogates technological labels of the social science researcher to understand power dynamics and interpret what is meant by “good science” across disciplines. These findings help us understand how individuals appraise interdisciplinarity, setting realistic expectations for addressing future interdisciplinary collaborations more deliberately. Lastly, I also consider the ethical considerations necessary to care for the ethnographer in interdisciplinary collaborations, as they are often caught in the crosshairs of the frustrations in collaborating.","PeriodicalId":72536,"journal":{"name":"Catalyst (San Diego, Calif.)","volume":"62 8","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"STS Researchers as Technology: Multiple Positionalities as Interpretations of Participant Expectations and Agendas\",\"authors\":\"Ashley Lewis\",\"doi\":\"10.28968/cftt.v9i2.39335\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Science and technology studies (STS) researchers integrated into interdisciplinary research projects learn important lessons of collaboration dynamics by analyzing the lived experience of the research participants. Previous approaches of STS researchers included laboratory studies and reimagining the collaborative process as a research method. However, previous research on interdisciplinary projects repeatedly cites recurring challenges, indicating that more sharing of this lived experience is needed. My autoethnography of an interdisciplinary project interrogates the various positionalities I embodied as research technologies. In adopting a feminist analytical approach, this paper forefronts emotional affect and interrogates technological labels of the social science researcher to understand power dynamics and interpret what is meant by “good science” across disciplines. These findings help us understand how individuals appraise interdisciplinarity, setting realistic expectations for addressing future interdisciplinary collaborations more deliberately. Lastly, I also consider the ethical considerations necessary to care for the ethnographer in interdisciplinary collaborations, as they are often caught in the crosshairs of the frustrations in collaborating.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72536,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Catalyst (San Diego, Calif.)\",\"volume\":\"62 8\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Catalyst (San Diego, Calif.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.28968/cftt.v9i2.39335\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catalyst (San Diego, Calif.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.28968/cftt.v9i2.39335","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

科学与技术研究(STS)的研究人员通过分析研究参与者的生活经验,在跨学科研究项目中学习合作动态的重要经验。STS研究人员以前的方法包括实验室研究和重新设想协作过程作为一种研究方法。然而,先前对跨学科项目的研究反复提到了反复出现的挑战,表明需要更多地分享这种生活经验。我的一个跨学科项目的自我民族志对我作为研究技术所体现的各种立场提出了质疑。本文采用女性主义的分析方法,将情感影响放在首位,并对社会科学研究者的技术标签进行质疑,以理解权力动力学,并解释跨学科的“好科学”的含义。这些发现帮助我们了解个体如何评估跨学科,为更有意识地解决未来的跨学科合作设定现实的期望。最后,我还考虑了在跨学科合作中照顾民族志学家所必需的伦理考虑,因为他们经常在合作中遇到挫折。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
STS Researchers as Technology: Multiple Positionalities as Interpretations of Participant Expectations and Agendas
Science and technology studies (STS) researchers integrated into interdisciplinary research projects learn important lessons of collaboration dynamics by analyzing the lived experience of the research participants. Previous approaches of STS researchers included laboratory studies and reimagining the collaborative process as a research method. However, previous research on interdisciplinary projects repeatedly cites recurring challenges, indicating that more sharing of this lived experience is needed. My autoethnography of an interdisciplinary project interrogates the various positionalities I embodied as research technologies. In adopting a feminist analytical approach, this paper forefronts emotional affect and interrogates technological labels of the social science researcher to understand power dynamics and interpret what is meant by “good science” across disciplines. These findings help us understand how individuals appraise interdisciplinarity, setting realistic expectations for addressing future interdisciplinary collaborations more deliberately. Lastly, I also consider the ethical considerations necessary to care for the ethnographer in interdisciplinary collaborations, as they are often caught in the crosshairs of the frustrations in collaborating.
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