反思性与公众参与科学——对科研人员的实证研究

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (12)

Download: PDF (5499 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract As an endeavor to better orient science,technology and innovation (STI)to social needs,Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)is becoming a hot concept in STI policy field.Using the data from a national survey of scientists in China conducted in 2014,this study examines China's scientists' attitude to public engagement in STI and how this attitude is affected by the scientist's reflexivity.The findings show that the scientists in China are generally positive towards public engagement in STI,yet they tends to be more positive towards public participation in applied research than that in basic research.Meanwhile,it is found that the reflectivity on risk and scientists' social responsibility can lead to positive attitude towards public engagement respectively,while the so called“upstream”engagement advocated by RRI need both of them.

Key words： Reflexivity Responsible research and innovation Public engagement Researcher

Received: 21 March 2019

PACS:

G301

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	Lu Yangxu
	Zhao Yandong

Cite this article:

Lu Yangxu,Zhao Yandong. Reflexivity and Public Engagement:An Empirical Study on the Scientists' Attitude[J]. , 2020, 1(2): 148-155.

URL:

http://www.zgkjlt.org.cn/EN/ OR http://www.zgkjlt.org.cn/EN/Y2020/V1/I2/148

[1]European Commition.Responsible research& innovation[EB/OL].Available at http:/ /ec.europa.eu /programmes /horizon2020 /en /h2020-section/responsible-research-innovation.
[2]National Science Foundation.Science and engineering indicators[R].Arlington,VA,2002.
[3]何光喜,朱依娜.城镇公众对科学家的刻板印象及其影响因素分析——基于五城市调查数据的分析[J].科学学研究,2014 (8):1121-1128.
[4]STILGOE J,LOCK S J,WILSDON J.Why should we promote public engagement with science[J].Public understanding of science,2014,23 (1):4-15.
[5]赵延东,廖苗.中国的负责任研究与创新[J].中国软科学,2017 (3):37-46.
[6]梅亮,陈劲,李福嘉.责任式创新: “内涵-理论-方法”的整合框架[J].科学学研究,2018 (3):522-530.
[7]BESLEY J C,NISBET M.How scientists view the public,the media and the political process[J].Public understanding of science.2011,22 (6):644-659.
[8]DAVIES S R.Constructing communication:talking to scientists about talking to the public[J].Science communication,2008,29 (4):413-434.
[9]MOORE A,STILGOE J.Experts and anecdotes:the role of “anecdotal evidence”in public scientific controversies[J].Technology and human values,2009,34 (5):654-677.
[10]KRYSTALLIS A,FREWER L,ROWE G,et al.A perceptual divide? Consumer and expert attitudes to food risk management in Europe[J].Health risk and society,2007,9 (4):407-424.
[11]BURCHELL K.Empiricist selves and contingent‘others’:the performative function of the discourse of scientists working in conditions of controversy[J].Public understanding of science,2007,16 (2):145-162.
[12]COOK G,PIERI E,ROBBINS P T.The scientists think and the public feels:expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food[J].Discourse and society,2004,15 (4):433-449.
[13]BECK U.Risk society:towards a new modernity[M].London:Sage Publication Ltd,1992.
[14]LYNCH M.Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge[J].Theory,culture & society,2000 (17):26-54.
[15]WYNNE B.Lab work goes social,and vice-versa:strategising public engagement processes[J].Science and engineering ethics,2011 (17):791-800.
[16]OWEN R,STILGOE J,MACNAGHTEN P M,et al.A Framework for responsible innovation[M]//OWEN R,BESSANT J,HEINTZ M.Responsible innovation.London:John Wiley,2013:27-50.
[17]BECK U,GIDDENS A,LASH S.Reflexive modernization:politics,tradition and aesthetics in modern social order[M].Stanford,Calif:Stanford University Press,1994.
[18]GIDDENS A.Consequences of modernity[M].Cambridge:Policy Press Ltd,1990.
[19]RIP A,MISA T,SCHOT J.Managing technology in society:the approach of constructive technology assessment[M].London:Thomson,1995.
[20]STILGOE J,OWEN R,MACNAGHTEN P.Developing a framework for responsible innovation[J].Research policy,2013,42:1568-1580.
[21]MAASEN S,WEINGART P,Democratization of expertise:exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making[M].Dordrecht:Springer,2005:15.
[22]NOWOTNY H,SCOTT P,GIBBONS M.Re-thinking science:knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty[M].Cambridge:Polity Press Ltd,2001.
[23]RIP A.The past and future of RRI[J].Life science,society and policy,2014,10:17.
[24]莫少群. “科学家的社会责任”问题的由来与发展[J].自然辩证法通讯,2003 (6):50-53.
[25]廖苗.负责任研究与创新的理论和实践[R].中国科学技术发展战略研究院博士后出站报告,2018.
[26]SHELLEY E C.Ethics in practice:responding to an evolving problematic situation of nanotechnology in society[D].University of Twente,2011.
[27]GERBER A.RRI:how to‘mainstream’the‘upstream’engagement[J].Journal of science communication,2018,17 (3):1-3.
[28]ESCOBAR O.Upstream public engagement,downstream policy-making? The brain imaging dialogue as a community of inquiry[J].Science and public policy,2014,41:480-492.
[29]苏竣.从精英决策到大众参与:理性视角下的科技决策模式变迁研究[J].中国行政管理,2014 (3):90-94.
[30]WYNNE B.Public uptake of science:a case for institutional reflexivity[J].Public understanding of science.1993 (2):321-337.