迈向负责任的研究(和创新)的空间。

IF 3.1 Q1 Arts and Humanities
Life Sciences, Society and Policy Pub Date : 2016-12-01 Epub Date: 2016-05-20 DOI:10.1186/s40504-016-0040-8
Emanuele Bardone, Marianne Lind
{"title":"迈向负责任的研究(和创新)的空间。","authors":"Emanuele Bardone,&nbsp;Marianne Lind","doi":"10.1186/s40504-016-0040-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The term Responsible Research and Innovation has recently gained currency, as it has been designated to be a key-term in the European research framework Horizon 2020. At the level of European research policy, Responsible Research and Innovation can be viewed as an attempt to reach a broader vision of research and innovation as a public good. The current academic debate may be fairly enriched by considering the role that phronesis may have for RRI. Specifically, in this paper we argue that the current debate might be fruitfully enriched by making a categorial shift. Such a categorial shift involves moving away from the temptation to interpret responsible research and innovation in a technocratic way towards a more pluralistic vision that is rooted in the idea of phronesis. In the present context phronesis points the attention to the cultivation and nurturement of the researcher's formation as a type of engagement with the actual practice of researching, a practice in which researchers (and other parties concerned) are called to apply judgment and exercise discretion in specific and often unique situations without the re-assuring viewpoint of the technician. </p>","PeriodicalId":37861,"journal":{"name":"Life Sciences, Society and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40504-016-0040-8","citationCount":"22","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards a phronetic space for responsible research (and innovation).\",\"authors\":\"Emanuele Bardone,&nbsp;Marianne Lind\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40504-016-0040-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The term Responsible Research and Innovation has recently gained currency, as it has been designated to be a key-term in the European research framework Horizon 2020. At the level of European research policy, Responsible Research and Innovation can be viewed as an attempt to reach a broader vision of research and innovation as a public good. The current academic debate may be fairly enriched by considering the role that phronesis may have for RRI. Specifically, in this paper we argue that the current debate might be fruitfully enriched by making a categorial shift. Such a categorial shift involves moving away from the temptation to interpret responsible research and innovation in a technocratic way towards a more pluralistic vision that is rooted in the idea of phronesis. In the present context phronesis points the attention to the cultivation and nurturement of the researcher's formation as a type of engagement with the actual practice of researching, a practice in which researchers (and other parties concerned) are called to apply judgment and exercise discretion in specific and often unique situations without the re-assuring viewpoint of the technician. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Life Sciences, Society and Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40504-016-0040-8\",\"citationCount\":\"22\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Life Sciences, Society and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-016-0040-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2016/5/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Life Sciences, Society and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-016-0040-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/5/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

摘要

最近,“负责任的研究与创新”被指定为欧洲研究框架“地平线2020”(Horizon 2020)的关键术语,开始流行起来。在欧洲研究政策的层面上,负责任的研究和创新可以被视为一种尝试,以达到研究和创新作为一种公共产品的更广阔的视野。考虑到phronesis对RRI的作用,目前的学术辩论可能会相当丰富。具体地说,在本文中,我们认为当前的辩论可能会通过进行范畴转变而富有成效地丰富起来。这种范畴上的转变包括摆脱以技术官僚的方式解释负责任的研究和创新的诱惑,转向一种根植于phronesis理念的更多元化的愿景。在当前的语境中,phronesis将注意力集中在培养和培养研究人员的形成上,作为一种与研究实际实践的接触,在这种实践中,研究人员(和其他相关方)被要求在特定的、通常是独特的情况下应用判断和行使自由裁量权,而不需要技术人员的重新保证观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Towards a phronetic space for responsible research (and innovation).

The term Responsible Research and Innovation has recently gained currency, as it has been designated to be a key-term in the European research framework Horizon 2020. At the level of European research policy, Responsible Research and Innovation can be viewed as an attempt to reach a broader vision of research and innovation as a public good. The current academic debate may be fairly enriched by considering the role that phronesis may have for RRI. Specifically, in this paper we argue that the current debate might be fruitfully enriched by making a categorial shift. Such a categorial shift involves moving away from the temptation to interpret responsible research and innovation in a technocratic way towards a more pluralistic vision that is rooted in the idea of phronesis. In the present context phronesis points the attention to the cultivation and nurturement of the researcher's formation as a type of engagement with the actual practice of researching, a practice in which researchers (and other parties concerned) are called to apply judgment and exercise discretion in specific and often unique situations without the re-assuring viewpoint of the technician.

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
Life Sciences, Society and Policy
Life Sciences, Society and Policy Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: The purpose of Life Sciences, Society and Policy (LSSP) is to analyse social, ethical and legal dimensions of the most dynamic branches of life sciences and technologies, and to discuss ways to foster responsible innovation, sustainable development and user-driven social policies. LSSP provides an academic forum for engaged scholarship at the intersection of life sciences, philosophy, bioethics, science studies and policy research, and covers a broad area of inquiry both in emerging research areas such as genomics, bioinformatics, biophysics, molecular engineering, nanotechnology and synthetic biology, and in more applied fields such as translational medicine, food science, environmental science, climate studies, research on animals, sustainability, science education and others. The goal is to produce insights, tools and recommendations that are relevant not only for academic researchers and teachers, but also for civil society, policy makers and industry, as well as for professionals in education, health care and the media, thus contributing to better research practices, better policies, and a more sustainable global society.
×
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