治理和土地管理有助于理解治理的对象,表达一种不同意见的伦理

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Helen Verran
{"title":"治理和土地管理有助于理解治理的对象,表达一种不同意见的伦理","authors":"Helen Verran","doi":"10.18793/LCJ2015.15.09","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Having worked in science studies for many years, objects of knowledge are my usual focus of analysis. In particular in the past I have puzzled about how the objects that scientists know, and objects that practitioners of Aboriginal Australian knowledge traditions know, might be connected and separated. One example of that analytic work involved analysing the objects of knowledge involved as scientists and Aboriginal landowners engaged with each other around land management firing (Verran, 2002a). In 2014 I find that the character of the entity that is my focus of analysis must change. Epistemic practices as such, are no longer of much interest to those who fund research in Australia. Nowadays it is objects of governance that are of interest. Of course objects of governance come to life as knowable in knowledge practices, but it is not their capacity to constitute enough certainty about the world known that matters nowadays. It is their role in allowing transparent organisational accountability that now matters. And that shift is accompanied by changed institutional arrangements. Research associated with services provision is now largely the order of the day in Australian universities. Thus it is that, near the end of my career, I find myself working in ‘GroundUP,’ a research group and a services provider located in a policy research unit in Charles Darwin University (see Charles Darwin University’s webpage www. cdu.edu.au/centres/groundup/). No longer a field worker, I am a story-teller who worries at coming up with some useful naming’s of what we are doing in our ground-up policy research and services delivery projects.","PeriodicalId":43860,"journal":{"name":"Learning Communities-International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Governance and Land Management Fires Understanding Objects of Governance as Expressing an Ethics of Dissensus\",\"authors\":\"Helen Verran\",\"doi\":\"10.18793/LCJ2015.15.09\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Having worked in science studies for many years, objects of knowledge are my usual focus of analysis. In particular in the past I have puzzled about how the objects that scientists know, and objects that practitioners of Aboriginal Australian knowledge traditions know, might be connected and separated. One example of that analytic work involved analysing the objects of knowledge involved as scientists and Aboriginal landowners engaged with each other around land management firing (Verran, 2002a). In 2014 I find that the character of the entity that is my focus of analysis must change. Epistemic practices as such, are no longer of much interest to those who fund research in Australia. Nowadays it is objects of governance that are of interest. Of course objects of governance come to life as knowable in knowledge practices, but it is not their capacity to constitute enough certainty about the world known that matters nowadays. It is their role in allowing transparent organisational accountability that now matters. And that shift is accompanied by changed institutional arrangements. Research associated with services provision is now largely the order of the day in Australian universities. Thus it is that, near the end of my career, I find myself working in ‘GroundUP,’ a research group and a services provider located in a policy research unit in Charles Darwin University (see Charles Darwin University’s webpage www. cdu.edu.au/centres/groundup/). No longer a field worker, I am a story-teller who worries at coming up with some useful naming’s of what we are doing in our ground-up policy research and services delivery projects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43860,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Learning Communities-International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Learning Communities-International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18793/LCJ2015.15.09\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning Communities-International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18793/LCJ2015.15.09","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

从事科学研究多年,知识对象通常是我分析的重点。特别是在过去,我对科学家所知道的物体和澳大利亚土著知识传统实践者所知道的物体是如何联系和分离的感到困惑。这种分析工作的一个例子涉及分析科学家和土著土地所有者围绕土地管理射击相互接触时所涉及的知识对象(Verran, 2002a)。2014年,我发现作为我分析重点的实体的特征必须改变。对于那些资助澳大利亚研究的人来说,这样的认知实践不再有多大的兴趣。如今,人们感兴趣的是治理对象。当然,在知识实践中,治理对象以可知的形式出现,但它们对已知世界构成足够确定性的能力在当今并不重要。现在重要的是他们在实现透明的组织问责制方面的作用。这种转变伴随着制度安排的改变。在澳大利亚的大学里,与服务提供相关的研究在很大程度上是当今的主流。因此,在我职业生涯即将结束时,我发现自己在“GroundUP”工作,这是一个位于查尔斯·达尔文大学政策研究部门的研究小组和服务提供商(见查尔斯·达尔文大学的网页www)。cdu.edu.au /中心/ groundup /)。我不再是一名实地工作者,而是一名讲故事的人,我担心为我们在基层政策研究和服务提供项目中所做的事情想出一些有用的名字。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Governance and Land Management Fires Understanding Objects of Governance as Expressing an Ethics of Dissensus
Having worked in science studies for many years, objects of knowledge are my usual focus of analysis. In particular in the past I have puzzled about how the objects that scientists know, and objects that practitioners of Aboriginal Australian knowledge traditions know, might be connected and separated. One example of that analytic work involved analysing the objects of knowledge involved as scientists and Aboriginal landowners engaged with each other around land management firing (Verran, 2002a). In 2014 I find that the character of the entity that is my focus of analysis must change. Epistemic practices as such, are no longer of much interest to those who fund research in Australia. Nowadays it is objects of governance that are of interest. Of course objects of governance come to life as knowable in knowledge practices, but it is not their capacity to constitute enough certainty about the world known that matters nowadays. It is their role in allowing transparent organisational accountability that now matters. And that shift is accompanied by changed institutional arrangements. Research associated with services provision is now largely the order of the day in Australian universities. Thus it is that, near the end of my career, I find myself working in ‘GroundUP,’ a research group and a services provider located in a policy research unit in Charles Darwin University (see Charles Darwin University’s webpage www. cdu.edu.au/centres/groundup/). No longer a field worker, I am a story-teller who worries at coming up with some useful naming’s of what we are doing in our ground-up policy research and services delivery projects.
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
9.10%
发文量
8
×
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