Suchergebnisse

The disposal of nuclear waste involves extensive time scales. Technical experts consider up to 1 million years for the disposal of spent fuel and high‐level waste in their safety assessment. Yet nuclear waste is not only a technical but also a so‐called sociotechnical problem and, therefore, requires interdisciplinary collaboration between technical, natural, social sciences, and the humanities in its management. Given that these disciplines differ in their language, epistemics, and interests, such collaboration might be problematic. Based on evidence from cognitive psychology, we suggest that, in particular, a concept like time is presumably critical and can be understood differently. This study explores how different scientific disciplines understand extensive time scales in general and then focuses on nuclear waste. Eighteen qualitative exploratory interviews were conducted with experts for time‐related phenomena of different disciplines, among them experts working in nuclear waste management. Analyses revealed two distinct conceptions of time corresponding to idiographic and nomothetic research approaches: scientists from the humanities and social sciences tend to have a more open, undetermined conception of time, whereas natural scientists tend to focus on a more determined conception that includes some undetermined aspects. Our analyses lead to reflections on potential difficulties for interdisciplinary teams in nuclear waste management. We focus on the understanding of the safety assessment, on potential implications for communication between experts from different disciplines (e.g., between experts from the humanities and engineering for risk assessment and risk communication), and we reflect on the roles of different disciplines in nuclear waste management.

Dans le présent article, nous nous appuyons sur notre expérience en tant que chercheurs issus de trois disciplines distinctes, l'économie, le droit et la science politique, pour discuter de la valeur ajoutée que chacune d'elle apporte à l'étude du fédéralisme fiscal au Canada et pour réfléchir plus largement à la manière dont ces disciplines peuvent se compléter dans le cadre d'une collaboration interdisciplinaire. Bien que les approches pluridisciplinaires puissent aborder des questions de recherche qui découlent des traditions savantes spécifiques, la collaboration interdisciplinaire permet aux chercheurs non seulement d'avoir une meilleure compréhension des réalités politiques, mais également d'élaborer et/ou d'évaluer les solutions de politique publique d'une manière qui tienne compte des complexités du monde réel. Note des rédacteurs : Le premier volume de Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de politiques a été publié en 1975. Ce volume-ci est le cinquantième. Pour commémorer cet événement, nous avons organisé une série de conférences qui sont publiées dans ce numéro spécial. Le professeur Béland a donné cette conférence lors des réunions de l'Association canadienne de science politique à Toronto en mai 2023.

The introduction of new technologies in society is sometimes met with public resistance. Supported by public policy calls for "upstream engagement" and "responsible innovation," recent years have seen a notable rise in attempts to attune research and innovation processes to societal needs, so that stakeholders' concerns are taken into account in the design phase of technology. Both within the social sciences and in the ethics of technology, we see many interdisciplinary collaborations being initiated that aim to address tensions between various normative expectations about science and engineering and the actual outcomes. However, despite pleas to integrate social science research into the ethics of technology, effective normative models for assessing technologies are still scarce. Rawls's wide reflective equilibrium (WRE) is often mentioned as a promising approach to integrate insights from the social sciences in the normative analysis of concrete cases, but an in-depth discussion of how this would work in practice is still lacking. In this article, we explore to what extent the WRE method can be used in the context of technology development. Using cases in engineering and technology development, we discuss three issues that are currently neglected in the applied ethics literature on WRE. The first issue concerns the operationalization of abstract background theories to moral principles. The second issue concerns the inclusiveness of the method and the demand for openness. The third issue is how to establish whether or not an equilibrium has been reached. These issues should be taken into account when applying the methods to real-world cases involving technological risks. Applying the WRE method in the context of engaged interdisciplinary collaboration requires sensitivity for issues of power and representativeness to properly deal with the dynamics between the technical and normative researchers involved as well as society at large.