• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Science, Technology and Human Values >Deliberating Competence: Theoretical and Practitioner Perspectives on Effective Participatory Appraisal Practice
【24h】

Deliberating Competence: Theoretical and Practitioner Perspectives on Effective Participatory Appraisal Practice

机译：审议能力：有效参与评估实践的理论和实践者观点

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The "participatory turn" cutting across technical approaches for appraising environment, risk, science, and technology has been accompanied by intense debates over the desired nature, extent, and quality of public engagement in science. Burgeoning work evaluating the effectiveness of such processes and the social study of science in society more generally is notable, however, for lacking systematic understanding of the very actors shaping these new forms science-society interaction. The United Kingdom based in-depth empirical research that made space for participatory appraisal experts to reflect on effective practice and novel questions of competence, expertise, and citizen-specialist relations within analytic-deliberative processes. Emerging practitioner principles warn that existing participatory models have not sufficiently considered constructivist perspectives on knowledge, analysis, and deliberation. Effective participatory appraisal under uncertainty needs to guard against the "technocracy of participation" by opening up to diversity, difference, antagonism, and uncertainties/indeterminacies.
机译：跨越评估环境，风险，科学和技术的技术方法的“参与性转变”伴随着关于公众参与科学的期望性质，范围和质量的激烈辩论。然而，评估这类过程和社会科学研究的有效性的新兴工作是值得注意的，因为他们缺乏对构成这些新形式的科学与社会互动的参与者的系统理解。英国进行了深入的实证研究，为参与式评估专家提供了空间，使他们可以在分析协商过程中反思有效的实践以及能力，专业知识和公民与专家之间关系的新问题。新兴的从业者原则警告说，现有的参与模式尚未充分考虑建构主义对知识，分析和审议的观点。在不确定性下进行有效的参与式评估需要通过开放多样性，差异，对抗和不确定性/不确定性来防范“参与的技术性”。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号