Suppr超能文献

参与式研究的不可能性:研究者、“公众”与机构之间的同谋关系与责任

The impossibility of engaged research: Complicity and accountability between researchers, 'publics' and institutions.

作者信息

Heney Veronica, Poleykett Branwyn

机构信息

Wellcome Centre for Cultures and Environments of Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.

Faculty of Social & Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Sociol Health Illn. 2022 Dec;44 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):179-194. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.13418. Epub 2021 Dec 7.

Abstract

Over the past decade, U.K. universities have increasingly sought to involve publics in research as active participants in the construction of academic knowledge. Sociologists of health have largely welcomed this enthusiasm for engaged and participatory ways of working, including methodologies long in use in the field such as patient-led research and co-creation. Despite the strong interest in engaged research, however, we argue that funding patterns, bureaucratic structures and an overreliance on people employed on casual contracts make it extremely difficult, often impossible, to do engaged research in British universities. Drawing on our own experiences, we show how our attempts to practise and deepen accountability to variously situated publics were constrained by the way our institution imagined and materially supported engagement. We argue that it falls to individual researchers to mitigate or work around structural barriers to engagement, and that this process creates dilemmas of complicity. If engaged research is to fulfil its remit for inclusion and its radical potential, researchers need to think carefully about how the U.K. engagement agenda entwines with processes of casualisation, acceleration and projectification, and how institutional recuperations of engagement can undermine its political and epistemic objectives.

摘要

在过去十年中,英国大学越来越多地寻求让公众作为学术知识构建的积极参与者参与研究。健康领域的社会学家在很大程度上欢迎这种对参与式工作方式的热情,包括该领域长期使用的方法,如患者主导的研究和共同创造。然而,尽管对参与式研究有着浓厚兴趣,但我们认为,资金模式、官僚结构以及对临时合同工的过度依赖,使得在英国大学开展参与式研究极其困难,甚至常常是不可能的。借鉴我们自己的经验,我们展示了我们试图实践并深化对不同处境公众的问责是如何受到我们所在机构对参与的设想以及物质支持方式的限制。我们认为,减轻或克服参与的结构性障碍的责任落在了个别研究人员身上,而这一过程会产生同谋困境。如果参与式研究要实现其包容的使命及其激进潜力,研究人员需要仔细思考英国的参与议程如何与临时工化、加速和项目化进程交织在一起,以及机构对参与的回收利用如何可能破坏其政治和认知目标。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

9
An Introduction to Engaged Phenomenology.参与式现象学导论
JBSP. 2022 Jun 29;53(3):226-242. doi: 10.1080/00071773.2022.2081533. eCollection 2022.

本文引用的文献

1
Towards a feminist philosophy of engagements in health-related research.迈向健康相关研究中的女性主义参与哲学。
Wellcome Open Res. 2022 Feb 10;6:58. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16535.2. eCollection 2021.
10
On sitting and doing: ethnography as action in global health.静与动:全球健康中的民族志行动
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Dec;99:127-34. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.07.018. Epub 2013 Jul 31.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验