4.6 Article

Research and Scientific Advice in the Second Modernity: Technology Assessment, Responsible Research and Innovation, and Sustainability Research

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 13, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su131810406

关键词

modernization; risk society; reflexivity; anticipation; inclusion; responsibility; unintended effects

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper discusses Technology Assessment (TA), Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), and Sustainability Research (SR) as manifestations of reflexive modernization in problem-oriented and transformative research. It aims to unfold the hypothesis regarding these approaches within reflexive modernization, clarify the meaning of 'reflexive' in each approach, identify commonalities and differences between them, and draw conclusions for their relation and further development.
The scientific and technological advance has been a major driving force of modernization for centuries. However, the 20th century was full of indications and diagnoses of a deep crisis of modernity. Currently, debates on limits to growth, pollution, and climate change indicate the serious and threatening lack of sustainability of the so-called 'first modernity'. This crisis of modernity has motivated scholars to develop concepts of modernizing modernity, with the approach of a 'reflexive modernization' to reach a 'second modernity' being prominent. In this paper, Technology Assessment (TA), Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), and Sustainability Research (SR) are regarded as manifestations of this reflexive modernization in the field of problem-oriented and transformative research. The paper aims to (a) unfold the hypothesis regarding TA, RRI, and SR as scientific approaches within reflexive modernization, (b) clarify the respective meaning of 'reflexive' in these approaches, (c) identify commonalities as well as differences between the three approaches, and (d) draw conclusions for the relation and further development of TA, RRI, and SR.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据