Социоцентризм versus техноцентризм в исследованиях умного города
| Parent link: | Вестник Томского государственного университета. Философия. Социология. Политология/ Национальный исследовательский Томский государственный университет (ТГУ) № 80.— 2024.— С. 99-107 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Corporate Author: | |
| Other Authors: | , |
| Summary: | Анализируются две тенденции исследований умного города, ориентированного на человека. Одна тенденция связана с так называемым техноцентризмом, другая - с социоцентризмом. Позиция социоцентризма оформляется в целостную систему, включающую в себя фокус исследований, ориентированный на граждан («citizen-focused» Smart Cities), гражданскую науку; предполагающую разнообразие инструментов вовлечения горожан в процессы со-участного проектирования умного устойчивого города. Авторы заявляют об отсутствии конфликта интересов. The article examines two prevailing trends in human-centered research on smart cities, specifically focusing on the dichotomy between technocentrism and sociocentrism. Sociocentrism is conceptualized as a comprehensive framework that emphasizes citizen oriented research (referred to as “citizen-focused” smart cities) and citizen science, advocating for diverse methodologies to engage citizens in the participatory design processes of a smart sustainable city. This sociocentric perspective reveals a proclivity towards reinforcing the significance of critical urbanism, whose proponents argue it is crucial for detecting heightened inequality, social injustices, and equitable urban spatial arrangements. Contemporary critical urbanism and critical urban sociology share a common goal of unearthing the underlying implications of technology - specifically, its associations with disparities, hegemony, and injustices. The study delves into the historical, cultural, and political settings that have given rise to smart urbanism. Furthermore, it underscores the necessity of adopting a balanced strategy that integrates participatory elements alongside professional expertise in the execution of any smart city initiative. An integral theme within the discourse surrounding the reevaluation of smart cities pertains to the multifaceted concept of participation. Presently, the involvement of residents is deemed indispensable in not only the development of public spaces such as parks, waterfronts, and squares, but also in all smart projects. Various tools are employed to facilitate participation, ranging from surveys and social research to strategic project workshops, seminars, and community festivals. The mode of engagement is largely contingent on the project’s scale and contextual backdrop. Within the realm of participatory endeavors linked to smart cities, the concept of a city assembly invariably assumes a central role. Several scholars posit that the theory of city assemblages enhances our comprehension of urban constructs and elucidates how contemporary discourses shape the realms of living, learning, recreation, employment, and interactivity. The authors declare no conflicts of interests. |
| Published: |
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=71963227 |
| Format: | Electronic Book Chapter |
| KOHA link: | https://koha.lib.tpu.ru/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=675766 |
| Summary: | Анализируются две тенденции исследований умного города, ориентированного на человека. Одна тенденция связана с так называемым техноцентризмом, другая - с социоцентризмом. Позиция социоцентризма оформляется в целостную систему, включающую в себя фокус исследований, ориентированный на граждан («citizen-focused» Smart Cities), гражданскую науку; предполагающую разнообразие инструментов вовлечения горожан в процессы со-участного проектирования умного устойчивого города. Авторы заявляют об отсутствии конфликта интересов. The article examines two prevailing trends in human-centered research on smart cities, specifically focusing on the dichotomy between technocentrism and sociocentrism. Sociocentrism is conceptualized as a comprehensive framework that emphasizes citizen oriented research (referred to as “citizen-focused” smart cities) and citizen science, advocating for diverse methodologies to engage citizens in the participatory design processes of a smart sustainable city. This sociocentric perspective reveals a proclivity towards reinforcing the significance of critical urbanism, whose proponents argue it is crucial for detecting heightened inequality, social injustices, and equitable urban spatial arrangements. Contemporary critical urbanism and critical urban sociology share a common goal of unearthing the underlying implications of technology - specifically, its associations with disparities, hegemony, and injustices. The study delves into the historical, cultural, and political settings that have given rise to smart urbanism. Furthermore, it underscores the necessity of adopting a balanced strategy that integrates participatory elements alongside professional expertise in the execution of any smart city initiative. An integral theme within the discourse surrounding the reevaluation of smart cities pertains to the multifaceted concept of participation. Presently, the involvement of residents is deemed indispensable in not only the development of public spaces such as parks, waterfronts, and squares, but also in all smart projects. Various tools are employed to facilitate participation, ranging from surveys and social research to strategic project workshops, seminars, and community festivals. The mode of engagement is largely contingent on the project’s scale and contextual backdrop. Within the realm of participatory endeavors linked to smart cities, the concept of a city assembly invariably assumes a central role. Several scholars posit that the theory of city assemblages enhances our comprehension of urban constructs and elucidates how contemporary discourses shape the realms of living, learning, recreation, employment, and interactivity. The authors declare no conflicts of interests. |
|---|