Constructing Expertise
Constructing Expertise
复制标题
构建专业知识
DOI：
10.1177/03063127030333006
复制
发表时间：
2003
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
A. Rip
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Rip
Collins & Evans (2002) 关于“专业知识规范理论”作为科学研究的下一步的讨论文件中有很多值得同意的地方，但也有很多地方不同意的地方。虽然我对他们的各种修辞策略有疑问，但我强烈同意柯林斯和埃文斯的观点，即专业知识的规范理论是目前科学研究的一个重要挑战 (2002: 237, 239) .2 然而，我发现他们的论文在如何应对这一挑战方面令人失望。他们的论文中有三个项目符合规范理论，或者说是这种理论的开端。首先，柯林斯和埃文斯强调，存在一些专业知识，通常是“基于经验的”，但这些专业知识不被认证所认可（2002：238）。3他们没有跟进人们如何识别这种专业知识，并在早期阶段将其识别为一种能力。尽管这很可能是不可能的，但人们也许能够改进识别过程。其次，他们强调更多的“扩展”，即非专业人士的更多参与，并不总是更好。这一点值得重申，进一步阐明很重要。柯林斯和埃文斯似乎建议实际的“最佳”延期应根据具体情况决定。至少，这是他们讨论案件的方式（2002：261-65）。第三，他们强调，人们可以有效地从深奥的科学作为模型开始，并以社会学家研究此类科学的经验作为启发。这确实是规范理论的一部分，这可以从以下短语中看出：
There is much with which to agree in the discussion paper of Collins & Evans (2002) on a 'normative theory of expertise' as the next step in science studies, but also much with which to disagree. While I have a problem with their various rhetorical strategies,' I strongly agree with Collins and Evans that a normative theory of expertise is an important challenge for science studies at the present time (2002: 237, 239) .2 However, I found their paper curiously disappointing in how they address that challenge. There are three items in their paper that qualify for a normative theory, or the beginnings of such a theory. First, Collins and Evans emphasize that there is expertise, often 'experience-based', which is not recognized by certification (2002: 238).3 They do not follow-up on how one can recognize such expertise, and recognize it at an early stage, perhaps as a competence. Although this may well be impossible, one might be able to improve the processes of recognition. Second, they emphasize that more 'extension', i.e. more participation by non-specialists, is not always better. This point deserves to be reiterated, and further articulation is important. Collins and Evans appear to suggest that the actual, 'optimal', extension is to be decided on a case-by-case basis. At least, that is the way they discuss their cases (2002: 261-65). Third, they emphasize that one can usefully start with esoteric sciences as a model, and with the experience of the sociologist studying such sciences as a heuristic. That this is indeed part of a normative theory is visible in phrases such as: