Transforming Scientists' Understanding of Science-Society Relations. Stimulating Double-Loop Learning when Teaching RRI.

Maria Bårdsen Hesjedal, Heidrun Åm, Knut H Sørensen, Roger Strand
Author Information
  1. Maria Bårdsen Hesjedal: Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491, Trondheim, Norway. maria.b.hesjedal@ntnu.no. ORCID
  2. Heidrun Åm: Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491, Trondheim, Norway.
  3. Knut H Sørensen: Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491, Trondheim, Norway. ORCID
  4. Roger Strand: Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities (SVT), University of Bergen, PB7805, NO-5020, Bergen, Norway. ORCID

Abstract

The problem of developing research and innovation in accordance with society's general needs and values has received increasing attention in research policy. In the last 7 years, the concept of "Responsible Research and Innovation" (RRI) has gained prominence in this regard, along with the resulting question of how best to integrate awareness about science-society relations into daily practices in research and higher education. In this context, post-graduate training has been seen as a promising entrance point, but tool-kit approaches more frequently have been used. In this paper, we present and analyze an experiment-in the format of a Ph.D. course for early-career researchers-deploying an alternative approach. Drawing on Argyris and Schön's (1974) framing of reflective practice, and their distinctions between espoused theories and theories-in-use, the analyzed course endeavored to stimulate double-loop learning. Focusing on dislocatory moments, this paper analyses how the course tried to teach participants to reflect upon their own practices, values, and ontologies, and whether this provided them with the resources necessary to reflect on their theories-in-use in their daily practices.

Keywords

References

  1. Science. 2015 Apr 3;348(6230):36-8 [PMID: 25791083]
  2. Nature. 2015 Jun 25;522(7557):413-4 [PMID: 26108836]
  3. Nature. 1999 Dec 2;402(6761 Suppl):C81-4 [PMID: 10591229]
  4. BMJ. 2003 Feb 8;326(7384):328-30 [PMID: 12574050]
  5. Sociol Health Illn. 2019 Mar;41(3):455-469 [PMID: 30203431]
  6. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017 Jun;23(3):861-882 [PMID: 27682451]
  7. Sci Eng Ethics. 2011 Dec;17(4):769-88 [PMID: 22057782]
  8. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017 Feb;23(1):81-103 [PMID: 26956121]
  9. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Apr;25(2):597-615 [PMID: 29417391]

MeSH Term

Humans
Learning
Physicians
Policy

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0researchpracticescourseinnovationvaluesRRIrelationsdailytrainingpaperPhDtheories-in-uselearningreflectproblemdevelopingaccordancesociety'sgeneralneedsreceivedincreasingattentionpolicylast7 yearsconcept"ResponsibleResearchInnovation"gainedprominenceregardalongresultingquestionbestintegrateawarenessscience-societyhighereducationcontextpost-graduateseenpromisingentrancepointtool-kitapproachesfrequently haveusedpresentanalyzeexperiment-informatearly-careerresearchers-deployingalternativeapproachDrawingArgyrisSchön's1974framingreflectivepracticedistinctionsespousedtheoriesanalyzedendeavoredstimulatedouble-loopFocusingdislocatorymomentsanalysestriedteachparticipantsuponontologieswhetherprovidedresourcesnecessaryTransformingScientists'UnderstandingScience-SocietyRelationsStimulatingDouble-LoopLearningTeachingBiotechnologyDouble-loopReflectionResponsibleScience–society

Similar Articles

Cited By