多元化的审议转向:走向一种竞争的RRI

IF 3.1 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL ISSUES
Deborah Scott
{"title":"多元化的审议转向:走向一种竞争的RRI","authors":"Deborah Scott","doi":"10.1177/01622439211067268","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In its “deliberative turn,” the field of science and technology studies (STS) has strongly advocated opening up decision-making processes around science and technology to more perspectives and knowledges. While the theory of democracy underpinning this is rarely explicitly addressed, the language and ideas used are often drawn from deliberative democracy. Using the case of synthetic biology and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), this paper looks at challenges of public engagement and finds parallels in long-standing critiques of deliberative democracy. The paper suggests that STS scholars explore other theories of decision-making and explores what an RRI grounded in agonistic pluralism might entail. An agonistic RRI could develop empirical research around questions of power relations in contemporary science and technology, seek to facilitate the formation of political publics around relevant issues, and frame different actors’ stances as adversarial positions on a political field rather than “equally valid” perspectives.","PeriodicalId":48083,"journal":{"name":"Science Technology & Human Values","volume":"37 1","pages":"295 - 318"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diversifying the Deliberative Turn: Toward an Agonistic RRI\",\"authors\":\"Deborah Scott\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01622439211067268\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In its “deliberative turn,” the field of science and technology studies (STS) has strongly advocated opening up decision-making processes around science and technology to more perspectives and knowledges. While the theory of democracy underpinning this is rarely explicitly addressed, the language and ideas used are often drawn from deliberative democracy. Using the case of synthetic biology and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), this paper looks at challenges of public engagement and finds parallels in long-standing critiques of deliberative democracy. The paper suggests that STS scholars explore other theories of decision-making and explores what an RRI grounded in agonistic pluralism might entail. An agonistic RRI could develop empirical research around questions of power relations in contemporary science and technology, seek to facilitate the formation of political publics around relevant issues, and frame different actors’ stances as adversarial positions on a political field rather than “equally valid” perspectives.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48083,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science Technology & Human Values\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"295 - 318\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science Technology & Human Values\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211067268\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL ISSUES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Technology & Human Values","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211067268","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

在其“审议转向”中,科学技术研究领域(STS)强烈主张向更多的观点和知识开放围绕科学技术的决策过程。虽然支持这一点的民主理论很少被明确提及,但所使用的语言和思想往往来自协商民主。本文以合成生物学和负责任的研究与创新(RRI)为例,探讨了公众参与的挑战,并在长期以来对协商民主的批评中找到了相似之处。本文建议STS学者探索其他决策理论,并探讨基于竞争多元主义的RRI可能带来的影响。对抗型RRI可以围绕当代科学和技术中的权力关系问题开展实证研究,寻求促进围绕相关问题形成政治公众,并将不同行为者的立场框架为政治领域中的对抗立场,而不是“同等有效”的观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Diversifying the Deliberative Turn: Toward an Agonistic RRI
In its “deliberative turn,” the field of science and technology studies (STS) has strongly advocated opening up decision-making processes around science and technology to more perspectives and knowledges. While the theory of democracy underpinning this is rarely explicitly addressed, the language and ideas used are often drawn from deliberative democracy. Using the case of synthetic biology and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), this paper looks at challenges of public engagement and finds parallels in long-standing critiques of deliberative democracy. The paper suggests that STS scholars explore other theories of decision-making and explores what an RRI grounded in agonistic pluralism might entail. An agonistic RRI could develop empirical research around questions of power relations in contemporary science and technology, seek to facilitate the formation of political publics around relevant issues, and frame different actors’ stances as adversarial positions on a political field rather than “equally valid” perspectives.
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
7.70
自引率
6.50%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: As scientific advances improve our lives, they also complicate how we live and react to the new technologies. More and more, human values come into conflict with scientific advancement as we deal with important issues such as nuclear power, environmental degradation and information technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values is a peer-reviewed, international, interdisciplinary journal containing research, analyses and commentary on the development and dynamics of science and technology, including their relationship to politics, society and culture.
×
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