Guta Adrian, Strike Carol, Flicker Sarah, Murray Stuart J, Upshur Ross, Myers Ted
Carleton University, Canada.
University of Toronto, Canada.
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Dec;123:250-61. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.07.028. Epub 2014 Jul 12.
The "general public" and specific "communities" are increasingly being integrated into scientific decision-making. This shift emphasizes "scientific citizenship" and collaboration between interdisciplinary scientists, lay people, and multi-sector stakeholders (universities, healthcare, and government). The objective of this paper is to problematize these developments through a theoretically informed reading of empirical data that describes the consequences of bringing together actors in the Canadian HIV community-based research (CBR) movement. Drawing on Foucauldian "governmentality" the complex inner workings of the impetus to conduct collaborative research are explored. The analysis offered surfaces the ways in which a formalized approach to CBR, as promoted through state funding mechanisms, determines the structure and limits of engagement while simultaneously reinforcing the need for finer grained knowledge about marginalized communities. Here, discourses about risk merge with notions of "scientific citizenship" to implicate both researchers and communities in a process of governance.
“普通公众”和特定“群体”正日益融入科学决策过程。这一转变强调“科学公民身份”以及跨学科科学家、非专业人士和多部门利益相关者(大学、医疗保健机构和政府)之间的合作。本文的目的是通过对实证数据进行理论指导下的解读,对这些发展情况提出质疑,这些实证数据描述了加拿大基于社区的艾滋病研究(CBR)运动中各方参与者汇聚一堂所产生的后果。借鉴福柯的“治理术”理论,探讨了开展合作研究背后动力的复杂内在机制。所提供的分析揭示了通过国家资助机制所推动的CBR形式化方法,是如何决定参与的结构和限制,同时又强化了对边缘化群体更细致知识的需求。在此,关于风险的话语与“科学公民身份”的概念相结合,将研究人员和群体都卷入到一个治理过程中。