科学家与外行合作的复苏

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Heidi Campana Piva
{"title":"科学家与外行合作的复苏","authors":"Heidi Campana Piva","doi":"10.11590/abhps.2023.1.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"After a long period during which the involvement of laypersons was considered undesirable in the Western tradition of science, we have recently witnessed numerous collaborations which suggest that the desirability of societal involvement in the scientific practice is becoming recognized. This article argues that the historical considerations that once led to this division in cognitive labour have been in transformation, having undergone diverse shifts. In a first instance, the exclusion of laypersons from science is analysed in terms of the key concepts of systematicity, universality, and authority. For that, two examples are given: the case of the British photographic survey and that of the American Museum of Natural History. Next, the dissolution of these barriers between scientists and laypersons is discussed and illustrated by examples: the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Association in Austria, Fukushima nuclear monitoring stations, and the French Association of Muscular Dystrophy. It is concluded that, for science to be truly democratized, co-produced knowledge needs to be integrated in political decision-making processes, which is currently still lacking. Furthermore, since expertise can also be found in society, non-certified experts should work in conjunction with scientists, yet at the same time, the divide between experts and non-experts must be maintained. The inclusion of non-scientific experts in decision-making is fundamentally different from the inclusion of lay stakeholders. Hence, different participatory roles should be expected from stakeholders, experts, or scientists, and the most important challenge now is how to formally define such roles.","PeriodicalId":37693,"journal":{"name":"Acta Baltica Historiae et Philosophiae Scientiarum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Resurgence of Cooperation between Scientists and Laypersons\",\"authors\":\"Heidi Campana Piva\",\"doi\":\"10.11590/abhps.2023.1.03\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"After a long period during which the involvement of laypersons was considered undesirable in the Western tradition of science, we have recently witnessed numerous collaborations which suggest that the desirability of societal involvement in the scientific practice is becoming recognized. This article argues that the historical considerations that once led to this division in cognitive labour have been in transformation, having undergone diverse shifts. In a first instance, the exclusion of laypersons from science is analysed in terms of the key concepts of systematicity, universality, and authority. For that, two examples are given: the case of the British photographic survey and that of the American Museum of Natural History. Next, the dissolution of these barriers between scientists and laypersons is discussed and illustrated by examples: the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Association in Austria, Fukushima nuclear monitoring stations, and the French Association of Muscular Dystrophy. It is concluded that, for science to be truly democratized, co-produced knowledge needs to be integrated in political decision-making processes, which is currently still lacking. Furthermore, since expertise can also be found in society, non-certified experts should work in conjunction with scientists, yet at the same time, the divide between experts and non-experts must be maintained. The inclusion of non-scientific experts in decision-making is fundamentally different from the inclusion of lay stakeholders. Hence, different participatory roles should be expected from stakeholders, experts, or scientists, and the most important challenge now is how to formally define such roles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37693,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Baltica Historiae et Philosophiae Scientiarum\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Baltica Historiae et Philosophiae Scientiarum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11590/abhps.2023.1.03\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Baltica Historiae et Philosophiae Scientiarum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11590/abhps.2023.1.03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在很长一段时间内,非专业人员的参与被认为是不受西方科学传统欢迎的,我们最近目睹了许多合作,这些合作表明社会参与科学实践的可取性正在得到认可。本文认为,曾经导致这种认知劳动分工的历史考虑已经发生了转变,经历了不同的转变。首先,我们从系统性、普遍性和权威性这几个关键概念来分析科学排斥外行人的问题。关于这一点,有两个例子:英国摄影调查和美国自然历史博物馆。接下来,讨论了科学家和外行之间的这些障碍的消除,并举例说明:奥地利的大疱性营养不良表皮松解症研究协会、福岛核监测站和法国肌肉萎缩症协会。结论是,为了使科学真正民主化,需要将共同生产的知识整合到政治决策过程中,这是目前仍然缺乏的。此外,由于专业知识也可以在社会中找到,非认证专家应该与科学家合作,但同时,专家和非专家之间的鸿沟必须保持。让非科学专家参与决策与让非专业利益相关者参与决策有着根本的不同。因此,利益相关者、专家或科学家应该期待不同的参与角色,现在最重要的挑战是如何正式定义这些角色。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Resurgence of Cooperation between Scientists and Laypersons
After a long period during which the involvement of laypersons was considered undesirable in the Western tradition of science, we have recently witnessed numerous collaborations which suggest that the desirability of societal involvement in the scientific practice is becoming recognized. This article argues that the historical considerations that once led to this division in cognitive labour have been in transformation, having undergone diverse shifts. In a first instance, the exclusion of laypersons from science is analysed in terms of the key concepts of systematicity, universality, and authority. For that, two examples are given: the case of the British photographic survey and that of the American Museum of Natural History. Next, the dissolution of these barriers between scientists and laypersons is discussed and illustrated by examples: the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Association in Austria, Fukushima nuclear monitoring stations, and the French Association of Muscular Dystrophy. It is concluded that, for science to be truly democratized, co-produced knowledge needs to be integrated in political decision-making processes, which is currently still lacking. Furthermore, since expertise can also be found in society, non-certified experts should work in conjunction with scientists, yet at the same time, the divide between experts and non-experts must be maintained. The inclusion of non-scientific experts in decision-making is fundamentally different from the inclusion of lay stakeholders. Hence, different participatory roles should be expected from stakeholders, experts, or scientists, and the most important challenge now is how to formally define such roles.
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
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Baltica Historiae et Philosophiae Scientiarum sees its mission in offering publishing opportunities for Baltic and non-Baltic scholars in the field of the history and philosophy of natural and social sciences (including legal studies) to promote and further international cooperation between scholars of different countries in this field.
×
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