IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v13y2023i12p254-d1295296.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shaping an Image of Science in the 21st Century: The Perspective of Metamodernism

Author

Listed:
  • Anita Pipere

    (Department of Health Psychology and Pedagogy, Rīga Stradiņš University, LV-1009 Rīga, Latvia)

  • Kristīne Mārtinsone

    (Department of Health Psychology and Pedagogy, Rīga Stradiņš University, LV-1009 Rīga, Latvia)

Abstract

In a contemporary world facing countless multifaceted crises and challenges, science can still serve as one of the most powerful tools to deal with the ordeals of our time. However, the scientific community needs to provide space for reflection on novel ways of developing its centuries-old heritage and unlocking its potential for the benefit of the world and humanity. The purpose of this article was to deliberate on the image of contemporary science within the framework of the new philosophical paradigm of metamodernism. Following historical strands related to metamodernism and science, the authors encircled the general features and elaborated the main philosophical principles of metamodernism. The main task was to identify elements of contemporary science that conform to the philosophical principles of metamodernism. Thus, several features of science and research, such as the structure of science, scientific truth, metanarratives of science, scientific thinking, system of science, interaction of scientific disciplines, dialogue of science with society and politics, open science, digitalisation of science, etc., were interpreted through the perspective of the ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological principles of metamodernism. This article ends with a summary of the main points of the discussion and practical implications of the presented ideas.

Suggested Citation

  • Anita Pipere & Kristīne Mārtinsone, 2023. "Shaping an Image of Science in the 21st Century: The Perspective of Metamodernism," Societies, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-27, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:13:y:2023:i:12:p:254-:d:1295296
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/13/12/254/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/13/12/254/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Hulme & John Toye, 2006. "The case for cross-disciplinary social science research on poverty, inequality and well-being," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(7), pages 1085-1107.
    2. Richard Owen & Phil Macnaghten & Jack Stilgoe, 2012. "Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 751-760, December.
    3. Ana Delgado & Heidrun Åm, 2018. "Experiments in interdisciplinarity: Responsible research and innovation and the public good," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-8, March.
    4. Benedikt Fecher & Sascha Friesike, 2013. "Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought," RatSWD Working Papers 218, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    5. George Panigyrakis & Anna Zarkada, 2014. "A philosophical investigation of the transition from integrated marketing communications to metamodern meaning co-creation," Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 262-278, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jiqing Liu & Gui Zhang & Xiaojing Lv & Jiayu Li, 2022. "Discovering the Landscape and Evolution of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): Science Mapping Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-32, July.
    2. Beniamino Callegari & Olga Mikhailova, 2021. "RRI and Corporate Stakeholder Engagement: The Aquadvantage Salmon Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    3. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.
    4. Estibaliz Sáez de Cámara & Idoia Fernández & Nekane Castillo-Eguskitza, 2021. "A Holistic Approach to Integrate and Evaluate Sustainable Development in Higher Education. The Case Study of the University of the Basque Country," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Luciana Maines da Silva & Claudia Cristina Bitencourt & Kadígia Faccin & Tatiana Iakovleva, 2019. "The Role of Stakeholders in the Context of Responsible Innovation: A Meta-Synthesis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, March.
    6. Ivan Ligardo-Herrera & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Edurne A. Inigo & Vincent Blok, 2018. "Addressing Climate Change in Responsible Research and Innovation: Recommendations for Its Operationalization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, June.
    7. Tina C. Ambos & Katherine Tatarinov, 2022. "Building Responsible Innovation in International Organizations through Intrapreneurship," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 92-125, January.
    8. Pangbourne, Kate & Mladenović, Miloš N. & Stead, Dominic & Milakis, Dimitris, 2020. "Questioning mobility as a service: Unanticipated implications for society and governance," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 35-49.
    9. Anja Salzmann & Frode Guribye & Astrid Gynnild, 2021. "Mobile Journalists as Traceable Data Objects: Surveillance Capitalism and Responsible Innovation in Mobile Journalism," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 130-139.
    10. Luisa Barbosa-Gómez & Magdalena Wailzer & Laura Soyer & Anna Gerhardus & Francisco González Estay & Vincent Blok & Gema Revuelta, 2024. "Strategies to Overcome Collaborative Innovation Barriers: The Role of Training to Foster Skills to Navigate Quadruple Helix Innovations," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(3), pages 10057-10087, September.
    11. Alberto Ibanez & Ahmed AlRadaideh & Juan Antonio Jimber del Rio & Gyanendra Singh Sisodia, 2024. "Good Governance and Innovation: a Renewed Global Framework for National and Supranational Policy Advancement," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(2), pages 5794-5816, June.
    12. Nikas, A. & Gambhir, A. & Trutnevyte, E. & Koasidis, K. & Lund, H. & Thellufsen, J.Z. & Mayer, D. & Zachmann, G. & Miguel, L.J. & Ferreras-Alonso, N. & Sognnaes, I. & Peters, G.P. & Colombo, E. & Howe, 2021. "Perspective of comprehensive and comprehensible multi-model energy and climate science in Europe," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 215(PA).
    13. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    14. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    15. Reichelt, Nicole & Nettle, Ruth, 2023. "Practice insights for the responsible adoption of smart farming technologies using a participatory technology assessment approach: The case of virtual herding technology in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    16. Kathryn Oliver & Annette Boaz, 2019. "Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-10, December.
    17. Irene Monsonís-Payá & Mónica García-Melón & José-Félix Lozano, 2017. "Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation: A Methodological Proposal for Context-Based Weighting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-29, November.
    18. Genus, Audley & Iskandarova, Marfuga, 2018. "Responsible innovation: its institutionalisation and a critique," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-9.
    19. Martin Prowse, 2010. "Integrating reflexivity into livelihoods research," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 10(3), pages 211-231, July.
    20. Agata Gurzawska & Markus Mäkinen & Philip Brey, 2017. "Implementation of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) Practices in Industry: Providing the Right Incentives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-26, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:13:y:2023:i:12:p:254-:d:1295296. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.