Ðóñ Eng Cn Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Philosophy and Culture
Reference:

Grebenschikova, E. G. Trans Disciplinary Strategies of Communicating Risks

Abstract: The risk conception has become one of the key concepts of the modern social structures dynamics and prediction of their development trends. The basic factor of growing interest towards the risk issue is the society’s concern about negative consequences of the forced development of modern technical science and technologies. One of the methods of conceptualization of this issue is the theoretical frame describing the processes of communicating risks as a range of initiatives aimed at finding the effective mechanisms of involving public into solving difficult tasks and social learning. Productivity of trans-disciplinary strategies aimed at combination of scientific resources and the sphere of ascientific knowledge of social actors is shown in the sphere of biomedical technologies. One of the forms of the most adequate implementation of trans-disciplinary approaches to communicating risks is the so-called humanitarian expertise.


Keywords:

philosophy, trans disciplinary, risk, expertise, science, society, bio-medicine, communication, responsibility, reproduction of knowledge.


This article is unavailable for unregistered users. Click to login or register

References
1. Bekhmann G. Sovremennoe obshchestvo: obshchestvo riska, informatsionnoe obshchestvo, obshchestvo znaniy. — M.: Logos, 2010.
2. Bek U. Kriticheskaya teoriya mirovogo obshchestva riska. Kosmopoliticheskiy vzglyad na problemu [Elektronnyy resurs] // PROGNOZIΣ. — 2009. — ¹ 2 (18). — URL: http://www.intelros.ru/readroom/ prognosis/pr_2-2009 (data obrashcheniya 06.06. 2011)
3. Giddens E.Sud'ba, risk i bezopasnost' // THESIS. — 1994. — Vyp. 5.
4. Kiyashchenko L.P., Tishchenko P.D. Gumanitarnaya ekspertiza: germenevtika sub'ektnosti // Lichnost'. Kul'tura. Obshchestvo. — 2011. — T. XIII. — Vyp. 2. — ¹¹ 63-64.
5. Luman N. Ponyatie riska // THESIS. 1994. — ¹ 5.
6. Yudin B.G., Lukov Val. A. Gumanitarnaya ekspertiza. [Elektronnyy resurs]. URL: http://www.hdirussia. ru/69 (data obrashcheniya 06.06. 2011).
7. Barben D. Analyzing acceptance politics: Towards an epistemological shift in the public understanding of science and technology [Elektronnyy resurs] // Public Understand of Science. 2010. 19(3). — URL: http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/3/274 (data obrashcheniya 06.06. 2011).
8. Collins, H.M., Evans, R. The Third Wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience [Elektron-nyy resurs] // Social Studies of Science. — 2002. — 32; 235. — URL: http://sss.sagepub.com/cgi/content/ abstract/32/2/235 (data obrashcheniya 06.06. 2011).
9. Fischer, F. Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. — Durham, NC, London, 2000.
10. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S. & Combs, B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. — Policy Sciences. — 1978. — 9 (2).
11. Flinterman, F.J. et al. Transdisciplinarity: the new challenge for biomedical research. // Bulletin of science, technology and society. — 2001. — 21 (4).
12. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M. The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. — Sage, 2008.
13. Kates R.W. and Kasperson J.X. Comparative risk analysis of technological hazards // Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 1983. — v. 80.
14. Knight F. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. — N.Y., 2006.
15. Lewenstein, B.V. Models of public communication of science and technology. [Elektronnyy resurs] URL: http://www.dgdc.unam.mx/Assets/pdfs/sem_feb04.pdf (data obrashcheniya 06.06. 2011).
16. Luhmann N. Die wirtschaft der gesellschaft. — Frankfurt/M, 1988.
17. Rabinowitch E. Living dangerously in age of science // Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. — 1972. — Vol. 28. — ¹ 1.
18. Power, M. The audit society: rituals of verification. — Oxford University Press, 1999.
19. Pohl, C., Hadorn, G.H. Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary Research. — Munich, 2007