Show simple item record

Are Public Controversies an Eradicable Evil or an Inevitable Good? Exploring the Dynamics of the Science-society Relationship from a Social Constructivist and Actor-network Perspective
[journal article]

dc.contributor.authorLyapugina, Natalia A.de
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-09T06:12:16Z
dc.date.available2024-10-09T06:12:16Z
dc.date.issued2023de
dc.identifier.issn2074-0492de
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/97032
dc.description.abstractThe last half century has brought great changes to the science-society relationship. Unconditional acceptance of scientific expertise has been replaced by challenges to scientific authority and public socio-technical controversies. Social researchers have made efforts to understand the tensions in science and society relationship, trying find ways to resolve them. These efforts have broadly contributed to transformations in science and technology policy that got underway at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries. However, controversies have not faded into the past. In this article, the author provides a comparative analysis of the explanations of the above-mentioned dynamics of the science-society relationship in social constructivism and actor-network theory. The explanation of social constructivism is the most accredited perspective in Public Engagement with Science (PES) and science communication studies. It considers the dynamics of the science-society relationship by appealing to the local social identities of heterogeneous publics and their expertise, opposed to institutionalized assumptions of science. This perspective formed the basis of the dialogue model which is the primary reference point for modern science communication. In contrast, the explanation provided by actor-network theory, which highlights a deepening crisis of the division between specialists and non-specialists, remains, rather, on the periphery of scholarly attention. To introduce the approaches, the author refers to the key works of Michel Callon and Brian Wynne. The comparison is arranged around three main lines: 1) what are the reasons for challenging scientific authority and the emergence of public controversies; 2) how science and technology policy should be built; 3) what role social scientists play in the dynamics of the science-society relationship. By contrasting the arguments of the two approaches, it is demonstrated that scholarly disregard of actor-network theory in PES and science communication studies is unmerited, as it has potential for addressing and resolving the major issues in these domains.de
dc.languagerude
dc.subject.ddcSoziologie, Anthropologiede
dc.subject.ddcSociology & anthropologyen
dc.subject.otherscience communication; public engagement with science; social constructivism; public understanding of science; public controversiesde
dc.titleКонтроверзы - искоренимое зло или неизбежное благо? Динамика отношений науки и общества в перспективе социального конструктивизма и акторно-сетевой теорииde
dc.title.alternativeAre Public Controversies an Eradicable Evil or an Inevitable Good? Exploring the Dynamics of the Science-society Relationship from a Social Constructivist and Actor-network Perspectivede
dc.description.reviewbegutachtetde
dc.description.reviewrevieweden
dc.source.journalSociologija vlasti / Sociology of power
dc.source.volume35de
dc.publisher.countryRUSde
dc.source.issue3de
dc.subject.classozWissenschaftssoziologie, Wissenschaftsforschung, Technikforschung, Techniksoziologiede
dc.subject.classozSociology of Science, Sociology of Technology, Research on Science and Technologyen
dc.subject.thesozAkteur-Netzwerk-Theoriede
dc.subject.thesozactor-network-theoryen
dc.subject.thesozWissenschaftde
dc.subject.thesozscienceen
dc.identifier.urnurn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-97032-7
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Namensnennung, Nicht kommerz., Keine Bearbeitung 4.0de
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0en
internal.statusformal und inhaltlich fertig erschlossende
internal.identifier.thesoz10085258
internal.identifier.thesoz10062479
dc.type.stockarticlede
dc.type.documentZeitschriftenartikelde
dc.type.documentjournal articleen
dc.source.pageinfo8-56de
internal.identifier.classoz10220
internal.identifier.journal2720
internal.identifier.document32
internal.identifier.ddc301
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2003-3-8-56de
dc.description.pubstatusVeröffentlichungsversionde
dc.description.pubstatusPublished Versionen
internal.identifier.licence20
internal.identifier.pubstatus1
internal.identifier.review2
dc.subject.classhort10100de
dc.subject.classhort30100de
internal.pdf.validfalse
internal.pdf.wellformedtrue
internal.pdf.encryptedfalse


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record