Suchergebnisse

Critically assessing growth-based models of innovation policy, this enlightening study sparks new debate on the role and nature of responsible innovation. Drawing on insights from economics, politics, and science and technology studies, it proposes the concept of 'responsible stagnation' as an expansion of present discussions about growth, degrowth, responsibility and innovation within planetary limitations. This important intervention explores real-world relationships between the political economy, innovation policy and concepts of responsibility, and will be an invaluable resource for individuals and civil society organizations who seek to promote responsible innovation.

Intro -- Preface -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- Abbreviations -- Names and Collections Abbreviated When Listing Archival Documents -- List of Figures -- 1: Introduction -- A Brief Introduction to the Research -- Considering Social Movements Through a Cognitive Lens -- Visualising Movement Space and Consciousness -- The Structure of This Book -- References -- Part I: Action and Reflection: A Story of FINRRAGE in 28 Voices -- 2: Emergence -- Gathering Resistance -- Test-Tube Women -- Britain: First Steps -- Australia: From the Inside Out -- 'Death of the Female?': The Groningen Panel -- References -- 3: Expansion -- FINNRET Begins: Women Say NO, Amsterdam 1984 -- Britain: The Embryo Wars -- The 'Emergency' Conference: FINNRET Becomes FINRRAGE -- Germany: 'Erst die kuh, dann du' -- Australia: The Cradle of Reprotech? -- FINRRAGE in Europe -- Brussels 1986: The Feminist Hearing -- Mallorca 1986: Experts Only Need Apply? -- Frankfurt 1988: Frauen II -- Bringing the West East: Comilla 1989 -- References -- 4: Abeyance -- FINRRAGE Post-Comilla -- Boldern 1990: Europe Regroups -- Rio 1991: The Third FINRRAGE International Conference -- FINRRAGE Goes South/East -- Bangladesh 1993: Problematising "Population" -- FINRRAGE in Abeyance -- Conclusion to Part 1 -- References -- Part II: Studying It Up: The 'FINRRAGE Position' as a Cognitive Praxis -- 5: Demonstration in Publication -- The FINRRAGE Canon -- Foundational Texts -- Writing the Resistance -- Epistemological Explorations -- IRAGE and Other Journals -- Movement Intellectuals and Expertise -- References -- 6: Knowledge as Resistance -- Cognitive Praxis: Paradigm Revisited -- Cosmological Dimensions -- Organisational Form -- Technological Topics -- Conclusion to Part 2 -- Final Words -- References -- Appendix: The Women of FINRRAGE Interviewed for This Book -- References -- Index

This book presents a historicised account of the Feminist International Network of Resistance to Reproductive and Genetic Engineering (FINRRAGE). A coordinated effort during the 1980s and 1990s by an international group of women to create and disseminate feminist knowledge about the then-new field of reproductive technologies. Bringing insights from science and technology studies together with social movements and feminist theory, it seeks to examine larger questions about knowledge and expertise in activist engagements with rapidly-developing technologies, as well as explore an important and neglected episode of feminist history. Its findings will be relevant to scholars in science studies, gender and women's studies and social movements, as well as to anyone with an interest in reproductive technologies and the history of feminist activism.

This paper draws on a socio-historic case study of the Feminist International Network of Resistance to Reproductive and Genetic Engineering (FINRRAGE) in order to consider the ways in which activists create and develop knowledge in movements around complex emergent technologies. Using documentary and interview data, and an analytic framework drawn from Eyerman and Jamison's cognitive praxis paradigm, the paper outlines certain conditions under which activists may be able to create both social and social scientific knowledge in support of their claims. The paradigm itself is also interrogated, and suggestions made for extending and refining the framework through incorporation of theories of knowledge drawn from science and technology studies.

Service robots with advanced intelligence capabilities can potentially transform servicescapes. However, limited attention has been given to how consumers experiencing vulnerabilities, particularly those with disabilities, envisage the characteristics of robots' prospective integration into emotionally intense servicescapes, such as long-term care (LTC). We take an interdisciplinary approach conducting three exploratory studies with consumers with disabilities involving Community Philosophy, LEGO ® Serious Play ®, and Design Thinking methods. Addressing a lack of consumer-centric research, we offer a three-fold contribution by 1) developing a conceptualization of consumer-conceived value of robots in LTC, which are envisaged as a supporting resource offering consumers opportunities to realize value; 2) empirically evidencing pathogenic vulnerabilities as a potential value-destruction factor to underscore the importance of integrating service robots research with a service inclusion paradigm; and 3) providing a theoretical extension and clarification of prior characterizations of robots' empathetic and emotion-related AI capabilities. Consumers with disabilities conceive robots able to stimulate and regulate emotions by mimicking cognitive and behavioral empathy, but unable to express affective and moral empathy, which is central to care experience. While providing support for care practices, for the foreseeable future, service robots will not, in themselves, actualize the experience of "being cared for."

This Programme investigated the relationship between science, politics and publics in the aftermath of an influential 2000 UK House of Lords Science and Society report. We conceptualised top-down initiatives promising greater transparency around the use of scientific evidence in policymaking and opportunities for public engagement around research and innovation agendas, as well as bottom-up instances of public mobilisation around science as an effort to make science public. In principle, such a movement seemed to speak directly to wider arguments for 'opening up' controversial domains of evidence and research to public scrutiny of framing, tacit assumptions, and alternative forms of expertise. Yet, these promises raised a number of dilemmas that we sought to examine in a range of cases.