Dans cet article se rapportant à une pratique de la philosophie, nous interrogeons un présupposé qui conditionne la distribution des capacités intellectuelles dans nos sociétés contemporaines, dites du savoir – en l’occurrence, celui de l’inégalité des intelligences. Que ce soit sur le plan institutionnel (école, université, État) ou sur celui du rapport à soi (autoexclusion, mépris de soi) en passant par les rapports interpersonnels et entre groupes sociaux (non-reconnaissance, exclusion, objectification), il nous semble voir à l’oeuvre dans la société québécoise certains effets négatifs de ce présupposé. Le projet d’une science ouverte et réellement émancipatrice permet de mettre en question ce présupposé. Dans cette perspective, nous proposons une réflexion sur une pratique particulière, la médiation intellectuelle, qui prend non pas l’inégalité, mais l’égalité des intelligences en tant que principe directeur explicite. Nous tâcherons de détailler les diverses dimensions formelles et épistémologiques de cette pratique, en gardant à l’esprit les possibles conséquences d’une telle approche en ce qui a trait au projet d’une science ouverte : une science dont le caractère émancipateur ne se résume pas à ses résultats, mais s’étend également à sa production.This article questions an assumption that shapes how intellectual capacity is currently assigned in so-called knowledge societies, namely inequality of intelligence. It is possible to see the negative effects of this assumption in Quebec society, whether at the institutional level (school, university, state), in terms of self-relationship (self-exclusion, self-loathing), or as part of interpersonal and group relations (non-recognition, exclusion, objectification). For scientific inquiry to be open and truly emancipatory, this presupposition needs to be challenged. To this end, this article reflects on the practice of intellectual mediation, which explicitly takes equality of intelligence, rather than inequality of intelligence, as its guiding principle. In particular, the article seeks to provide a detailed explanation of the various formal and epistemological dimensions of this alternative practice, keeping in mind the potential consequences of such an approach for the objective of open science : scientific inquiry whose emancipatory potential is not limited to its results but also emcompasses the production of knowledge
Since 2015, Canadian practitioners and funders have been adapting research and development (R&D) principles and practices to the context of social purpose organizations (SPOs) to increase the trans-sectoral capacity to generate social innovations. As a result, Social R&D is rapidly gaining popularity among a diversified array of organizations. This article distills the findings of a mix-methods exploratory study and offers a typology of four different Social R&D conceptualizations and practices. An analysis of the literature and of the empirical findings indicates a general lack of shared understanding about what Social R&D entails as a concept or a process. Further precision of meaning is needed to judge of Social R&D’s specific value or to responsibly support its implementation through policy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.