Compressed Foresight and Narrative Bias: Pitfalls in Assessing High Technology Futures
Compressed Foresight and Narrative Bias: Pitfalls in Assessing High Technology Futures
复制标题
压缩的远见和叙述偏见：评估高科技未来的陷阱
DOI：
10.1080/09505430601022668
复制
发表时间：
2006
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Robin Williams
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Robin Williams
由于与20世纪70年代激进科学运动的历史联系，科学技术研究（STS）从一开始就关注科学技术（S&T）发展的批判性评估。在这种坚定的、积极的观点和建构主义的分析传统之间存在着一种创造性的紧张关系，这种传统阿利亚是从科学知识社会学中引入的（Pinch和Bijker，1984; Bijker，1993）。这篇论文的动机，写在2004年4S/EASST会议之后，是对基因组学和纳米技术正在被STS社区的大部分活动家所采用的方式的关注。在这次会议上（和其他地方），似乎有一个广泛共享的，尽管在很大程度上被认为是理所当然的，关于什么是问题和影响以及如何解决这些问题的脚本（社会科学研究协会，2004）。这些讨论似乎不加批判地促进并反映了关于新技术的更广泛的批判性讨论，这些讨论从一开始就被认为在风险和社会价值方面具有挑战性。这些承诺似乎与大多数STS学术分析中强调的需要解构研究对象，特别是对有关技术特征和影响的主张持怀疑态度相冲突。尽管个人偏好的分析和行动之间的平衡和反思和干预之间的更紧密的耦合比我的许多社会建构主义的同事，我发现自己在敦促更大的反身性分析距离和方法论的相对主义STS方法的方式高科技的未来令人惊讶的位置。本文探讨的问题是，在我们试图预测（甚至塑造）新兴科学技术的途径和社会影响时，我们如何能够解决创新过程及其结果的偶然性？Science as Culture Vol. 15，No. 4，327-348，December 2006
With its historical links to the 1970s radical science movements, Science and Technology Studies (STS) has from the outset been concerned with the critical assessment of developments in Science and Technology (S&T). There has been a creative tension between this committed, activist perspective and the constructivist analytic tradition imported inter alia from the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (Pinch and Bijker, 1984; Bijker, 1993). The motivation of this paper, written in the aftermath of the 2004 4S/EASST conference, was a concern about the ways in which genomics and nanotechnology are being taken up across much of the activist wing of the STS community. At the conference (and elsewhere) there seemed to be a broadly shared, albeit largely taken for granted, script about what were the issues and implications and how they should be addressed (Society for Social Studies of Science, 2004). These discussions seemed, uncritically, to be contributing to, as well as reflecting, wider critical discourses about new technologies, conceived from the outset as being challenging in terms of risks and social values. These commitments seem to conflict with the emphasis in most STS academic analysis on the need to deconstruct the objects of study, and in particular to be sceptical about claims regarding the character and implications of technologies. Despite a personal preference for a balance between analysis and action and for a closer coupling between reflection and intervention than many of my social constructivist colleagues, I find myself in the surprising position of urging greater reflexivity—analytical distance and indeed methodological relativism—in the way STS approaches high technology futures. The paper explores the question of how, in our attempts to anticipate (and even shape) the pathways and social implications of emerging science and technology, we can address the serendipity of innovation processes and their outcomes? Science as Culture Vol. 15, No. 4, 327–348, December 2006
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2003
期刊：
--
影响因子：
--
作者：
A. Mnyusiwalla;A. Daar;P. Singer
通讯作者：
A. Mnyusiwalla;A. Daar;P. Singer