On the Possible Autonomy of Science from Politics
The article clarifies the thesis about the autonomy of science in the political sphere. This clarification is topical since the thesis is far from unambiguous: it itself can be heard in the context of defending a certain political position. The clarification of this thesis implies, firstly, a distinction between politics as a struggle for power and policy as a practice of decision-making in important areas of public life and, secondly, a distinction between professional scientific research activity and activities of scientists as experts. The author shows that various elements of the scientific theoretical activity, no matter how far they are from the practical sphere, contain the possibility of engaging in politics as a struggle for power. The author also demonstrates that activity of scientists as experts, despite its obviously practical nature, allows the possibility of independence from a certain political position and participation in constructive political communication that assumes a rational justification of policy. The author correlates this participation with the concept of universal criticism (Edmund Husserl) and the mediated role of scientific experts as honest brokers (Roger Pielke). This research is conducted at the intersection of philosophy of science and social epistemology, as well as political research. The problem of sociopolitical dependency of professional scientific activity is revealed in the context of public science communication. The analysis of conditions of engaging scientists as scientific experts in making socially significant decisions, while avoiding the subjectivity of any party position and the struggle for power distribution, intersects with the study of the conditions of civic participation and governability involving cooperation and activity of all actors of political processes. This analysis allows determining the conditions for scientific experts to support coordinating institutional governance designs. Moreover, this research can serve to clarify and achieve the autonomy of science in political sphere.
Keywords
science communication,
theory and practice,
scientific expertise,
public policy,
governability,
powerAuthors
| Shipovalova Lada V. | Saint Petersburg State University | ladaship@gmail.com. l.shipovalova@spbu.ru |
Всего: 1
References
Грундманн Р. Штер Н. Власть научного знания. СПб. : Алетейя, 2015. 324 с.
Сморгунов Л.В. Институционализация управляемости и проблема контроля в пространстве цифровых коммуникаций // Южно-российский журнал социальных наук. 2019. Т. 20, № 3. С. 62-75.
Kooiman J. Exploring the Concept of Governability // Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis. 2008. Vol. 10, is. 2. P. 171-190.
Коулбач Х. Политика // Публичная политика: от теории к практике / ред. Н.Ю. Данилова, О.Ю. Гурова, Н.Г. Жидкова. СПб. : Алетейя, 2008. С. 35-50.
Гельман В.Я. Politics versus policy: технократические ловушки постсоветстких реформ // Полития. 2017. Т. 85, № 2. С. 32-59.
Shipovalova L.V. Max Weber's 'Inconvenient Facts' and Contemporary Studies of Public Science Communication // Social Epistemology. 2020. Vol. 34 (2). P. 130-141.
Scheufele D.A. Science Communication as Political Communication // PNAS. 2014. Vol. 111 (4). P. 13585-13592.
Hofmann J., Katzenbach Ch., Gollatz K. Between coordination and regulation: Finding the governance in Internet governance // New media and Society. 2017. Vol. 19 (9). P. 1406-1423.
Grundmann R. The Problem of Expertise in Knowledge Societies // Minerva. 2017. Vol. 55. P. 25-48.
Turner S. What is the Problem with Experts? // Social Studies of Science. 2001. Vol. 31 (1). P. 123-149.
Peters H.P. Scientists as public experts: expectations and responsibilities. // Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology / ed. by M. Bucchi, B. Trench. London ; New York : Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. P. 70-82.
Ivancheva L. The Concept of "Socially Robust Science" - Reasons for Introducing, Basic Characteristics, and a Method of Measurement // Sociology of Science and Technology. 2018. Vol. 9, № 3. P. 7-17.
Хабермас Ю. Онаученная политика и общественное мнение // Хабермас Ю. Техника и наука как «идеология». М. : Праксис, 2007. C. 136-166.
Feenberg A. A Critical Theory of Technology // Handbook on Science and Technology Studies / eds. U. Felt, R. Fouche, C.A. Miller, L. Smith-Doerr. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press, 2017. P. 635-664.
Вартофский М. Эвристическая роль метафизики в науке // Структура и развитие науки / ред. Б.С. Грязнова, В.С. Садовского. М. : Прогресс, 1978. С. 43-110.
Schrodt P.A. Seven Deadly Sins of Contemporary Quantitative Political Analysis // APSA 2010 Annual Meeting Paper. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1661045 (accessed: 13.04.2020).
Cohen I.B. Revolution in Science. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press, 1987. 732 p.
Вуттон Д. Изобретение науки: новая история научной революции. М. : КоЛибри : Аз-бука-Аттикус, 2018. 656 с.
Peters H.P. Gap between science and media revisited: scientists as public communicators // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013. Vol. 110 (3). P. 14102-14109.
Esko T., Tuunainen J. Achieving the social impact of science: an analysis of public press debate on urban development // Science and Public Policy. 2019. Vol. 46 (3). P. 404-414.
Столярова О.Е. Можно ли говорить о грехопадении науки? // Эпистемология и философия науки. 2019. Т. 56, № 3. С. 45-50.
Бажанов В.А. Марксизм и вульгарный социоцентризм. Парадоксы марксистской теории и практики // Философский журнал. 2020. Т. 13, № 1. С. 97-109.
Brown J.R. Who Rules in Science? Cambridge, MA ; London : Harvard University Press, 2001. 236 p.
Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship. URL: https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ (accessed: 13.04.2020).
Denzin N.K., Giardina M.D. Introduction Qualitative Inquiry at a Crossroads: Political, Performative, and Methodological Reflections. New York : Routledge, 2019. 214 p.
Сунгуров А.Ю. Фабрики мысли и экспертное сообщество в Москве, Санкт-Петербурге, Нижнем Новгороде и на Северном Кавказе // Политическая концептология : журнал междисциплинарных исследований. 2017. № 2. С. 115-137.
Pielke R. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. New York : Cambridge University Press. 2007. 187 p.
Гуссерль Э. Кризис европейского человечества и философия // Гуссерль Э. Логические исследования. Картезианские размышления. Кризис европейских наук и трансцендентальная феноменология. Кризис европейского человечества и философии. Философия как строгая наука. Минск : Харвест ; М. : АСТ, 2000. С. 625-665.
Nisbet N.C. Engaging in science policy controversies: insights from the US climate change debate // Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology / ed. by M. Bucchi, B. Trench. London ; New York : Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. P. 173-185.
Watts E., Hofifeld U., Levit G.S. Climate science can't be trumped: a look at how to translate empirical data into political action // Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies. 2019. Vol. 35, is 1. P. 145-158.
