Integrating Ethicists and Social Scientists into Cutting Edge Research and Technological Development

Philosophy of Engineering and Technology

Volumn 16, Issue , 2013, Pages 157-173

  Gorman, Michael E ^a   Calleja López, Antonio ^b,c   Conley, Shannon N ^d   Mahootian, Farzad ^e  

^a University of Virginia   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SEVILLE   (Spain)

^d ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Integration Experience; National Nanotechnology Initiative; Responsible Innovation; Trading Zone; Transactive Memory

Indexed keywords

EID: 84973642652     PISSN: 18797202     EISSN: 18797210     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_8     Document Type: Chapter

References (32)

1. Baird, D., & Cohen, M. (1999). Why trade? Perspectives on Science, 7(2), 231–254.
2. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Collins, H. (2004). Gravity’s shadow: The search for gravitational waves. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4. Collins, H. M. (2010). Tacit and explicit knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5. Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6. Collins, H., Evans, R., Ribeiro, R., & Hall, M. (2006). Experiments with interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 656–674.
7. Conley, S. (2011). Engagement agents in the making: On the front lines of socio-technical integration. Commentary on: “Constructing productive engagement: Pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies.” Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 715–721.
8. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. (2010). Embedding the humanities in engineering: Art, dialogue and a laboratory. In M. E. Gorman (Ed.), Trading zones and interactional expertise: Creating new kinds of collaboration (pp. 209–230). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Frodeman, R. L., & Parker, J. (2009). Intellectual merit and broader impact: The National Science Foundation’s broader impacts criterion and the question of peer review. Social Epistemology, 23(3–4), 337–345.
11. Galison, P. (1997). Image & logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
12. Gooding, D. (1990). Mapping experiment as a learning process: How the first electromagnetic motor was invented. Science, Technology and Human Values, 15(2), 165–201.
13. Gorman, M. E. (1997). Mind in the world: Cognition and practice in the invention of the telephone. Social Studies of Science, 27 (4), 583–624.
14. Gorman, M. E. (2002). Types of knowledge and their roles in technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(3), 219–231.
15. Gorman, M. E. (Ed.). (2010). Trading zones and interactional expertise: Creating new kinds of collaboration. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Gorman, M. E., Groves, J. F., & Catalano, R. K. (2004a). Societal dimensions of nanotechnology. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 29(4), 55–64.
17. Gorman, M. E., Groves, J. F., & Shrager, J. (2004b). Societal dimensions of nanotechnology as a trading zone: Results from a pilot project. In D. Baird, A. Nordmann, & J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering the nanoscale (pp. 63–73). Amsterdam: Ios Press.
18. Gorman, M., Werhane, P., & Swami, N. (2009). Moral imagination, trading zones, and the role of the ethicist in nanotechnology. NanoEthics, 3(3), 185–195. doi:10.1007/s11569-009-0069-8.
19. Hemlin, S. (2009). Creative knowledge environments. An interview study with group members and group leaders of university and industry R&D groups in biotechnology. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(4), 278–285.
20. Klein, G. (1999). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Liberman, S., & Wolf, K. B. (2013). Scientific communication and the process to co-authorship. In G. Feist & M. Gorman (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of science (pp. 123–150). New York: Springer.
22. Mahootian, F. (2012). Innovation by disequilibrium. Paper presented at the fourth annual conference of the Society for the Study of Nanoscience nd Emerging Technologies [S.NET], Oct 22–25. University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
23. McCray, P. (2004). Giant telescopes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24. Neisser, U. (1982). Memory observed. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
25. NNI Strategic Plan. (2011, February). http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/nni_strategic_plan_2011.pdf
26. Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that make us smart: Defending human attributes in the age of the machine. New York: Addison Wesley.
27. PUBLIC LAW 108–153—DEC. 3, 2003 http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ostp/Issues/Nano%20Act%202003.pdf
28. Rabinow, P. (1996). Making PCR: A story of biotechnology. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
29. Ribeiro, R. (2007). The role of interactional expertise in interpreting: The case of technology transfer in the steel industry. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 38, 713–721.
30. Shrager, J. (2005). Diary of an insane cell mechanic. In M. E. Gorman, R. D. Tweney, D. C. Gooding, & A. Kincannon (Eds.), Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 119–136). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. Te Kulve, H., & Rip, A. (2011). Constructing productive engagement: Pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 699–714.
32. Wade, N. (2010, December 9). Anthropology a science? Statement deepens a rift. New York Times, A–16.