Mapping the integrative field: taking stock of socio-technical collaborations

Journal of Responsible Innovation

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 39-61

  Fisher, Erik ^a   O'Rourke, Michael ^b   Evans, Robert ^c   Kennedy, Eric B ^a   Gorman, Michael E ^d   Seager, Thomas P ^e  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d University of Virginia   (United States)

^e Arizona State University   (United States)

Author keywords

collaboration; public engagement; socio technical integration; technology assessment; transdisciplinarity

Indexed keywords

EID: 85014381480     PISSN: 23299460     EISSN: 23299037     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2014.1001671     Document Type: Article

References (158)

1. Balmer, A. S., and K. J., Bulpin. 2013. “Left to Their Own Devices: Post-ELSI, Ethical Equipment and the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) Competition.” BioSocieties 8 (3): 311–335. doi: 10.1057/biosoc.2013.13
2. Balmer, A., K., Bulpin, J., Calvert, M., Kearnes, A., Mackenzie, C., Marris, P., Martin, S., Molyneux-Hodgson, and P., Schyfter. 2012. “Towards a Manifesto for Experimental Collaborations between Social and Natural Scientists.” http://experimentalcollaborations.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/towards-a-manifesto-for-experimental-collaborations-between-social-and-natural-scientists/
3. Bammer, G. 2013. Disciplining Interdisciplinarity. Canberra: ANU E-Press.
4. Barben, D., E., Fisher, C., Selin, and D. H., Guston. 2008. “Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by O. A. E., Hackett, M., Lynch, and J., Wajcman, 979–1000. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Bennett, I., and D., Sarewitz. 2006. “Too Little, Too Late? Research Policies on the Societal Implications of Nanotechnology in the United States.” Science as Culture 15 (4): 309–325. doi: 10.1080/09505430601022635
6. Bergmann, M., T., Jahn, T., Knobloch, W., Krohn, C., Pohl, and E., Schramm. 2012. Methods for TransdisciplinaryResearch: A Primer for Practice. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
7. Bijker, W. E., 1995. Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. London: MIT Press.
8. Bijker, W. E., and L., d'Andrea. 2009. Handbook on the Socialisation of Scientific and Technological Research. Rome: River Press Group.
9. Boenink, M. 2013. “The Multiple Practices of Doing ‘Ethics in The Laboratory’: A Mid-Level Perspective.” In Ethics on the Laboratory Floor, edited by Simone, van der Burg, and Tsjalling, Swierstra, 57–78. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
10. Bracken, C. J., and E. A., Oughton. 2006. “‘What Do You Mean?’ The Importance of Language in Developing Interdisciplinary Research.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31: 371–382. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00218.x
11. Bronk, D. W., 1975. “The National Science Foundation: Origins, Hopes, and Aspirations.” Science 188: 409–414. doi: 10.1126/science.1091972
12. Calvert, J. 2013. “Collaboration as a Research Method? Navigating Social Scientific Involvement in Synthetic Biology.” In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening Up the Laboratory, edited by Neelke, Doorn, Daan, Schuurbiers, Ibo, van de Poel and Michael E., Gorman, 175–194. Dordrecht: Springer.
13. Calvert, J., and P., Martin. 2009. “The Role of Social Scientists in Synthetic Biology.” EMBO Reports 10 (3): 201–204. doi: 10.1038/embor.2009.15
14. Caudill, D. S., 2009. “Synthetic Science: A Response to Rabinow.” Law and Literature 21 (3): 431–444. doi: 10.1525/lal.2009.21.3.431
15. Cho, M. K., S. L., Tobin, H. T., Greely, J., McCormick, A., Boyce, and D., Magnus. 2008. “Strangers at the Benchside: Research Ethics Consultation.” The American Journal of Bioethics 8 (3): 4–13. doi: 10.1080/15265160802109322
16. Collins, H. 2004. “Interactional Expertise as a Third Kind of Knowledge.” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 3 (2): 125–143. doi: 10.1023/B:PHEN.0000040824.89221.1a
17. Collins, H. 2011. “Language and Practice.” Social Studies of Science 41 (2): 271–300. doi: 10.1177/0306312711399665
18. Collins, H. M., and R. J., Evans. 2002. “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience.” Social Studies of Sciences 32 (2): 235–296. doi: 10.1177/0306312702032002003
19. Collins, H. M., and R. J., Evans. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
20. Collins, H., and R., Evans. 2014. “Quantifying the Tacit: The Imitation Game and Social Fluency.” Sociology 48 (1): 3–19. doi: 10.1177/0038038512455735
21. Collins, H., R., Evans, and M., Gorman. 2007. “Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38 (4): 657–666. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2007.09.003
22. Collins, H., R., Evans, R., Ribeiro, and M., Hall. 2006. “Experiments with Interactional Expertise.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37 (4): 656–674. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2006.09.005
23. Collins, H., and G., Sanders. 2007. “They Give You the Keys and Say ‘Drive It!’ Managers, Referred Expertise, and Other Expertises.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38 (4): 621–641. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2007.09.002
24. Crowley, S., S. D., Eigenbrode, M., O'Rourke, and J. D., Wulfhorst. 2010. “Localization in Cross-Disciplinary Research: A Philosophical Approach.” Multilingual 114. Accessed http://www.multilingual.com/downloads/114LCDR.pdf
25. Darling, K. W., A. M., Boyce, M. K., Cho, and P. L., Sankar. 2014. “‘What is the FDA Going to Think?’ Negotiating Values through Reflective and Strategic Category Work in Microbiome Science.” Science, Technology & Human Values. doi:10.1177/0162243914545405.
26. Doorn, N., I., van de Poel, D., Schuurbiers, and M. E., Gorman, eds. 2013. Opening Up the Laboratory: Approaches for Early Engagement with New Technologies. New York: Springer.
27. Doubleday, R. 2007. “The Laboratory Revisited.” NanoEthics 1 (2): 167–176. doi: 10.1007/s11569-007-0017-4
28. Doubleday, R., and A., Viseu. 2010. “Questioning Interdisciplinarity: What Roles for Laboratory Based Social Science.” In Nano Meets Macro: Social Perspectives on Nano Sciences and Technologies, edited by K., Kjolberg, and F. E., Wickson, 51–75. Singapore: Pan Stanford.
29. Eigenbrode, S., M., O'Rourke, J. D., Wulfhorst, D. M., Althoff, C. S., Goldberg, K., Merrill, W., Morse, et al. 2007. “Employing Philosophical Dialogue in Collaborative Science.” BioScience 57: 55–64. doi: 10.1641/B570109
30. European Commission. 2007. Work Programme 2007, Capacities, Part 5: Science in Society. Brussels: The Seventh Framework Programme.
31. Evans, Robert, and Helen, Crocker. 2013. “The Imitation Game as a Method for Exploring Knowledge(s) of Chronic Illness.” Methodological Innovations Online 8 (1): 34–52.
32. Evans, Robert, and Marvin, Simon. 2006. “Researching the Sustainable City: Three Modes of Interdisciplinarity.” Environment and Planning (A) 38 (6): 1009–1028. doi:10.1068/a37317.
33. Falk-Krzesinski, H. J., N., Contractor, S. M., Fiore, K. L., Hall, C., Kane, J., Keyton, J. T., Klein, B., Spring, D., Stokols, and W., Trochim. 2011. “Mapping a Research Agenda for the Science of Team Science.” Research Evaluation 20 (2): 145–158. doi: 10.3152/095820211X12941371876580
34. Fehr, C. 2011. What is in It for Me? The Benefits of Diversity in Scientific Communities. Dordrecht: Springer.
35. Fehr, C., and K. S., Plaisance. 2010. “Socially Relevant Philosophy of Science: An Introduction.” Synthese 177 (3): 301–316. doi: 10.1007/s11229-010-9855-7
36. Felt, U. 2014. “Within, Across and Beyond: Reconsidering the Role of Social Sciences and Humanities in Europe.” Science as Culture 23 (3): 384–396. doi: 10.1080/09505431.2014.926146
37. Fisher, E. 2005. “Lessons Learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications program (ELSI): Planning Societal Implications Research for the National Nanotechnology Program.” Technology in Society 27 (3): 321–328. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.04.006
38. Fisher, E. 2006. “Embedded Nanotechnology Policy Research.” Ogmius 14: 3–4.
39. Fisher, E. 2007. “Ethnographic Invention: Probing the Capacity of Laboratory Decisions.” NanoEthics 1 (2): 155–165. doi: 10.1007/s11569-007-0016-5
40. Fisher, E. 2011. “Public Science and Technology Scholars: Engaging Whom?” Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 607–620. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9331-x
41. Fisher, E. 2014. “Invited Testimony.” The presidential commission for the study of bioethical issues, Sixteenth Meeting, Washington, DC, February 11.
42. Fisher, E., S., Biggs, S., Lindsay, and J., Zhao. 2010. “Research Thrives on Integration of Natural and Social Sciences.” Nature 463: 1018.
43. Fisher, E., and R. L., Mahajan. 2006. “Contradictory Intent? U.S. Federal Legislation on Integrating Societal Concerns into Nanotechnology Research and Development.” Science and Public Policy 33 (1): 5–16. doi: 10.3152/147154306781779181
44. Fisher, E., and R. L., Mahajan. 2010. “Embedding the Humanities in Engineering: Art, Dialogue, and a Laboratory.” In Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise: Creating New Kinds of Collaboration, edited by Michael E., Gorman, 209–230. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45. Fisher, E., and C., Miller. 2009. “Contextualizing the Engineering Laboratory.” In Engineering in Context, edited by Steen Hyldgaard, Christensen, Bernard, Delahousse, and Martin, Meganck, 369–382. Aarhus: Systime Academic.
46. Fisher, E., R. L., Mahajan, and C., Mitcham. 2006. “Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance from Within.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26 (6): 485–496. doi: 10.1177/0270467606295402
47. Fisher, E., and G., Maricle. 2014. “Higher-Level Responsiveness? Socio-Technical Integration within US and UK Nanotechnology Research Priority Setting.” Science and Public Policy. doi:10.1093/scipol/scu017
48. Fisher, E., and A., Rip. 2013. “Responsible Innovation: Multi-Level Dynamics and Soft Interventions.” In Responsible Innovation, edited by R., Owen, M., Heintz, and J., Bessant, 165–183. Chichester: Wiley.
49. Fisher, E., and D., Schuurbiers. 2013. “Socio-technical Integration Research: Collaborative Inquiry at the Midstream of Research and Development.” In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening Up the Laboratory, edited by Neelke, Doorn, Daan, Schuurbiers, Ibo, van de Poel and Michael E., Gorman, 97–110. Dordrecht: Springer.
50. Fletcher, J. C., and M., Siegler. 1996. “What are the Goals of Ethics Consultation? A Consensus Statement.” The Journal of Clinical Ethics 7: 122–126.
51. Flipse, S. M., M. C., van der Sanden, and P., Osseweijer. 2013. “Midstream Modulation in Biotechnology Industry: Redefining What is ‘Part of the Job’ of Researchers in Industry.” Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3): 1141–1164. doi: 10.1007/s11948-012-9411-6
52. Flipse, S. M., M. C., van der Sanden, and P., Osseweijer. 2014. “Improving Industrial R&D Practices with Social and Ethical Aspects: Aligning Key Performance Indicators with Social and Ethical Aspects in Food Technology R&D.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 85: 185–197. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.009
53. Fountain, J. E., 2004. Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
54. Friedman, B. 1996. “Value-Sensitive Design.” Interactions 3 (6): 16–23. doi: 10.1145/242485.242493
55. Friedman, B., P. H., Kahn Jr, and A., Borning. 2008. “Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems.” In The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics, edited by Kenneth Einar, Himma and Herman T., Tavani, 69–101. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
56. Friedman, B., P. H., Kahn Jr, A., Borning, and A., Huldtgren. 2013. “Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems.” In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening up the Laboratory, edited by Neelke, Doorn, Daan, Schuurbiers, Ibo, van de Poel and Michael E., Gorman, 55–95. Dordrecht: Springer.
57. Frodeman, R. 2010. “Experiments in Field Philosophy.” The Stone, New York Times, November 23.
58. Frodeman, R., J. T., Klein, and C., Mitcham. 2010. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
59. Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R., Ravetz. 1993. “Science in the Post-Normal Age.” Futures 25 (7): 739–755. doi: 10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L
60. Funtowicz, Silvio, and Jerome, Ravetz. 2001. “Post-Normal Science. Science and Governance Under Conditions of Complexity.” In Interdisciplinarity in Technology Assessment: Implementation and its Chances and Limits, edited by M., Decker, 15–24. Berlin: Springer.
61. Galison, P. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
62. Gibbons, M., C., Limoges, H., Nowotny, S., Schwartzman, P., Scott, and M., Trow. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
63. Gjefsen, M. D., and E., Fisher. 2014. “From Ethnography to Engagement: The Lab as a Site of Intervention.” Science as Culture 23 (3): 419–431. doi: 10.1080/09505431.2014.926147
64. Goorden, L., M., van Oudheusden, J., Evers, and M., Deblonde. 2008. “Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow's Society: A Case for Reflective Action Research in Flanders, Belgium.” In The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume I: Presenting Futures, edited by E., Fisher, C., Selin, and J., Wetmore, 163–182. Dordrecht: Springer.
65. Gorman, M. 2002. “Levels of Expertise and Trading Zones: A Framework for Multidisciplinary Collaboration.” Social Studies of Science 32 (6): 933–938. doi: 10.1177/030631202128967343
66. Gorman, M. E., ed. 2010. Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise: Creating New Kinds of Collaboration. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
67. Gregory, R., G., Long, M., Colligan, J. G., Geiger, and M., Laser. 2012. “When Experts Disagree (and Better Science Won't Help Much): Using Structured Deliberations to Support Endangered Species Recovery Planning.” Journal of Environmental Management 105: 30–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.03.001
68. Guston, D. H., 2014. “Understanding ‘Anticipatory Governance’.” Social Studies of Science 44 (2): 218–242. doi: 10.1177/0306312713508669
69. Guston, D. H., E., Fisher, A., Grunwald, R., Owen, T., Swierstra, and S., van der Burg. 2014. “Responsible Innovation: Motivations for a New Journal.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 1–8. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.885175
70. Guston, D. H., and D., Sarewitz. 2002. “Real-Time Technology Assessment.” Technology in Society 24 (1): 93–109. doi: 10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1
71. Hackett, E. J., 2014. “The Vilnius Declaration.” Science, Technology & Human Values 39 (1): 3–5. doi: 10.1177/0162243913515373
72. Hackett, E. J., and D. R., Rhoten. 2011. “Engaged, Embedded, Enjoined: Science and Technology Studies in the National Science Foundation.” Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 823–838. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9307-x
73. Hess, David J. 2001. “Ethnography and the Development of Science and Technology Studies.” In Sage Handbook of Ethnography, edited by Paul, Atkinson, Amanda, Coffey, Sara, Delamont, John, Lofland, and Lyn, Lofland, 234–245. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
74. Hollander, R. D., and N. H., Steneck. 1990. “Science- and Engineering-Related Ethics and Values Studies: Characteristics of an Emerging Field of Research.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 15: 84–104. doi: 10.1177/016224399001500109
75. Irwin, A. 1995. Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.
76. Jasanoff, S., ed. 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge.
77. Jasanoff, S. 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Chicago, IL: Princeton University Press.
78. Jasanoff, S. 2011. “Constitutional Moments in Governing Science and Technology.” Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 621–638. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9302-2
79. Juengst, E. T., 1991. “The Human Genome Project and Bioethics.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1: 71–74. doi: 10.1353/ken.0.0139
80. Khushf, G. 2007. “Upstream Ethics in Nanomedicine: A Call for Research.” Nanomedicine 2 (4): 511–521. doi: 10.2217/17435889.2.4.511
81. Kleinman, D. L., 1998. “Beyond the Science Wars: Contemplating the Democratization of Science.” Politics and the Life Sciences 17: 133–145.
82. Kleinman, D. L., ed. 2000. Science, Technology, and Democracy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
83. Krabbenborg, L. 2013. “Dramatic Rehearsal on the Societal Embedding of the Lithium Chip.” In Ethics on the Laboratory Floor, edited by Simone, van der Burg and Tsjalling, Swierstra, 168–183. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
84. Lempert, R. J., S. W., Popper, and S. C., Bankes. 2003. “Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative, Long-Term Policy Analysis.” RAND MR-1626. www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1626
85. Lempert, R., D., Groves, S., Popper, and S., Bankes. 2006. “A General, Analytical Method for Generating Robust Strategies and Narrative Scenarios.” Management Science 52: 514–528. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1050.0472
86. Levidow, Les, and Claudia, Neubauer. 2014. “EU Research Agendas: Embedding What Future?” Science as Culture 23 (3): 397–412. doi: 10.1080/09505431.2014.926149
87. Looney, C., S., Donovan, M., O'Rourke, S., Crowley, S. D., Eigenbrode, L., Rotschy, N., Bosque-Pérez, and J. D., Wulfhorst. 2013. “Seeing through the Eyes of Collaborators: Using Toolbox Workshops to Enhance Cross-Disciplinary Communication.” In Enhancing Communication and Collaboration in Interdisciplinary Research, edited by M., O'Rourke, S., Crowley, S. D., Eigenbrode, and J. D., Wulfhorst, 220–243. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
88. Macnaghten, P., M. B., Kearnes, and B., Wynne. 2005. “Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?” Science Communication 27 (2): 268–291. doi: 10.1177/1075547005281531
89. McCain, L. 2002. “Informing Technology Policy Decisions: the US Human Genome Project's Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Programs as a Critical Case.” Technology in Society 24 (1): 111–132. doi: 10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00048-3
90. McCormick, Jennifer Blair, Angie M., Boyce, Jennifer M., Ladd, and Mildred K., Cho. 2012. “Barriers to Considering Ethical and Societal Implications of Research: Perceptions of Life Scientists.” Ajob Primary Research 3 (3): 40–50. doi: 10.1080/21507716.2012.680651
91. Mejlgaard, N., C., Bloch, L., Degn, T., Ravn, and M. W., Nielsen. 2012. Monitoring Policy and Research Activities on Science in Society in Europe (MASIS): Final Synthesis Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/monitoring-policy-research-activities-on-sis_en.pdf
92. Mitcham, C. 1994. Thinking through Technology: The Path Between Engineering and Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
93. Morse, W. C., M., Nielsen-Pincus, J. E., and Force, J. D., Wulfhorst. 2007. “Bridges and Barriers to Developing and Conducting Interdisciplinary Graduate-Student Team Research.” Ecology and Society 12: 8. Accessed January 12, 2008. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art8/.
94. National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research and Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy. 2004. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
95. National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research and Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy. 2005. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
96. Nordmann, A., and A., Schwarz. 2010. “Lure of the ‘Yes’: The Seductive Power of Technoscience.” In Governing Future Technologies: Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime, edited by M., Kaiser, M., Kurath, S., Maasen, and C., Rehmann-Sutter, 255–278. Dordrecht: Springer.
97. Nydal, R., S., Efstathiou, and A., Laegreid. 2012. “Crossover Research: Exploring a Collaborative Mode of Integration.” In Little by Little. Expansions of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies, edited by Harro van Lente, Christopher Coenen, Torsten Fleischer, Kornelia Konrad, Lotte Krabbenborg, Colin Milburn, François Thoreau, and Torben B. Zülsdorf, 181–194.Heidelberg: IOS Press/AKA.
98. Ommer, R., B., Wynne, R., Downey, E., Fisher, E., Marden, and P., Kosseim. 2011. “Pathways to Integration.” Genome British Columbia GSEAC Subcommittee on Pathways to Integration, Vancouver.
99. O'Rourke, M., and S. J., Crowley. 2013. “Philosophical Intervention and Cross-Disciplinary Science: The Story of the Toolbox Project.” Synthese 190: 1937–1954. doi: 10.1007/s11229-012-0175-y
100. O'Rourke, M., S., Crowley, S. D., Eigenbrode, and J. D., Wulfhorst, eds. 2013. Enhancing Communication and Collaboration in Interdisciplinary Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
101. Owen, R. 2014. “The UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council's Commitment to a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 113–117. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.882065
102. Owen, R., P., Macnaghten, and J., Stilgoe. 2012. “Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society.” Science and Public Policy 39 (6): 751–760. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs093
103. Owen, R., J., Stilgoe, P., Macnaghten, M., Gorman, E., Fisher, and D., Guston. 2013. “A Framework for Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation, edited by R., Owen, J., Bessant and M., Heintz, 27–50. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
104. Paletz, S., L., Smith-Doerr, and I., Vardi. 2010. “National Science Foundation Workshop Report: Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Innovation Science and Engineering Fields.” http://www.csid.unt.edu/nsf/nsf-workshop-report.pdf.
105. Patra, D. 2011. “Responsible Development of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology: Contextualizing Socio-Technical Integration into the Nanofabrication Laboratories in the USA.” NanoEthics 5 (2): 143–157. doi: 10.1007/s11569-011-0118-y
106. Pielke, R. A., 2007. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
107. Plaisance, K. S., and C., Fehr, eds. 2010. “Making Philosophy of Science more Socially Relevant.” Synthese 177 (3): 301–492.
108. Plaisance, K. S., and E. B., Kennedy. 2014. “A Pluralistic Approach to Interactional Expertise.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 47: 60–68. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2014.07.001
109. Pohl, C., and G., Hirsch Hadorn. 2007. Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary Research. Munich: Oekom Verlag.
110. Rabinow, P. 2009. “Prosperity, Amelioration, Flourishing: From a Logic of Practical Judgment to Reconstruction.” Law & Literature 21 (3): 301–320. doi: 10.1525/lal.2009.21.3.301
111. Rabinow, P., and G., Bennett. 2009a. “Human Practices: Interfacing Three Modes of Collaboration.” In The Ethics ofProtocells: Moral and Social Implications of Creating Life in the Laboratory, edited by M., Bedau and E. C., Parke, 263–290. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
112. Rabinow, P., and G., Bennett. 2009b. “Synthetic Biology: Ethical Ramifications 2009.” Systems and Synthetic Biology 3 (1–4): 99–108. doi: 10.1007/s11693-009-9042-7
113. Rabinow, P., and G., Bennett. 2012. Designing Human Practices: An Experiment with Synthetic Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
114. Rabinow, P., G., Bennett, and A., Stavrianakis. 2009. “Reply to the Respondents.” Law & Literature 2 (3): 471–479. doi: 10.1525/lal.2009.21.3.471
115. Rabinow, P., and A., Stavrianakis. 2013. Demands of the Day: On the Logic of Anthropological Inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
116. Ribes, D., and K., Baker. 2007. “Modes of Social Science Engagement in Community Infrastructure Design Communities and Technologies 2007.” Proceedings of the Third Communities and Technologies Conference, Michigan State University, Michigan.
117. Rip, A. 2002. “Co-evolution of Science, Technology and Society.” Expert Review for Bundesministerium Bildung und Forchung Förderinitiative Politik, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft, as man- aged by Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
118. Rip, A. 2009. “Futures of ELSA.” EMBO reports 10 (7): 666–670. doi: 10.1038/embor.2009.149
119. Rip, A., and H., van Lente. 2013. “Bridging the Gap Between Innovation and ELSA: The TA Program in the Dutch Nano-R&D Program NanoNed.” NanoEthics 7 (1): 7–16. doi: 10.1007/s11569-013-0171-9
120. Roco, M. C., W. S., Bainbridge, B., Tonn, and G., Whitesides, eds. 2013. Converging Knowledge, Technology, and Society: Beyond Convergence of Nano-Bio-Info-Cognitive Technologies. Dordrecht: Springer.
121. Rodríguez, H., E., Fisher, and D., Schuurbiers. 2013. “Integrating Science and Society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in Project-Level Solicitations.” Research Policy 42 (5): 1126–1137. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.02.006
122. Salazar, M. R., T. K., Lant, S. M., Fiore, and E., Salas. 2012. “Facilitating Innovation in Diverse Science Teams Through Integrative Capacity.” Small Group Research 43 (5): 527–558. doi: 10.1177/1046496412453622
123. Salazar, M. R., T. K., Lant, and A., Kane. 2011. “To Join or Not to Join: An Investigation of Individual Facilitators and Inhibitors of Medical Faculty Participation in Interdisciplinary Research Teams.” CTS Journal 4 (4): 274–278.
124. Schön, D. A., 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Vol. 5126. New York: Basic Books.
125. Schot, J., and A., Rip. 1997. “The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment.” Technological Forecasting & Social Change 54 (2&3): 251–268. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1
126. Schuurbiers, D. 2011. “What Happens in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory.” Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 769–788. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9317-8
127. Schuurbiers, D., and E., Fisher. 2009. “Lab-Scale Intervention.” EMBO Reports 10 (5): 424–427. doi: 10.1038/embor.2009.80
128. Sclove, Richard E. 1995. Democracy and Technology. New York: Guilford Press.
129. Selinger, E., H., Dreyfus, and H., Collins. 2007. “Interactional Expertise and Embodiment.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38 (4): 722–740. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2007.09.008
130. Selinger, E., and J., Mix. 2004. “On Interactional Expertise: Pragmatic and Ontological Considerations.” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 3 (2): 145–163. doi: 10.1023/B:PHEN.0000040825.60925.a4
131. Shilton, K. 2013. “Values Levers: Building Ethics into Design.” Science, Technology & Human Values 38 (3): 374–397.
132. Sievanen, L., L. M., Campbell, and H. M., Leslie. 2011. “Challenges to Interdisciplinary Research in Ecosystem-Based Management.” Conservation Biology 26 (2): 315–323. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01808.x
133. Stegmaier, P. 2009. “The Rock ‘N'roll of Knowledge Co-Production.” EMBO Reports 10 (2): 114–119. doi: 10.1038/embor.2008.253
134. Stilgoe, J., R., Owen, and P., Macnaghten. 2013. “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
135. Stirling, A. 2008. “‘Opening Up’ and ‘Closing Down’ Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology.” Science, Technology & Human Values 33 (2): 262–294. doi: 10.1177/0162243907311265
136. Stokols D., J., Fuqua, J., Gress, R., Harvey, K., Phillips, L., Baesconde-Garbanati, J., Unger, et al. 2003. “Evaluating Transdisciplinary Science.” Nicotine & Tobacco Research 5: S21–S39. doi: 10.1080/14622200310001625555
137. Stokols, D., K. L., Hall, B. K., Taylor, and R. P., Moser. 2008. “The Science of Team Science: Overview of the Field and Introduction to the Supplement.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35 (2): S77–S89. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.002
138. Sweet, D. S., Thomas P., Seager, S., Tylock, J., Bullock, Igor, Linkov, D. J., Colombo, and Uwe, Unrath. 2014. “Sustainability Awareness and Expertise: Structuring the Cognitive Processes for Solving Wicked Problems and Achieving an Adaptive-State.” In Sustainable Cities and Military Installations, edited by Igor, Linkov, 79–129. Dordrecht: Springer.
139. Taebi, Behnam, A., Correljé, E., Cuppen, M., Dignum, and U. Pesch. 2014. “Responsible Innovation as an Endorsement of Public Values: The Need for Interdisciplinary Research.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 118–124. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.882072
140. Thoreau, F., 2011. “On Reflections and Reflexivity: Unpacking Research Dispositifs.” In Quantum Engagements: Social Reflections of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies, edited by Torben B., Zülsdorf, Christopher, Coenen, Ulrich, Fiedeler, Arianna, Ferrari, Colin, Milburn, and Matthias, Wienroth, 219–235. Heidelberg: IOS Press/AKA.
141. Tuma, Julio R. 2013. “Nanoethics in a Nanolab: Ethics via Participation.” Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3): 983–1005. doi: 10.1007/s11948-013-9449-0
142. US Congress. 2003. “21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003. 2003.” Public Law no 108–153, 117 STAT. 1923.
143. Valve, H., and McNally, R. 2013. “Articulating Scientific Practice with PROTEE: STS, Loyalties, and the Limits of Reflexivity.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 38 (4): 470–491. doi: 10.1177/0162243912451340
144. Van de Poel, I., and N., Doorn. 2013. “Ethical Parallel Research: A Network Approach for Moral Evaluation (NAME).” In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening up the Laboratory, edited by Neelke, Doorn, Daan, Schuurbiers, Ibo, van de Poel, and Michael E., Gorman, 111–136. Dordrecht: Springer.
145. Van de Poel, I., and P-P., Verbeek. 2006. “Ethics and Engineering Design.” (Special Issue) Science, Technology& Human Values 31 (3): 223–236. doi: 10.1177/0162243905285838
146. Van der Burg, S., and T., Swierstra, eds. 2013. Ethics on the Laboratory Floor. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
147. Van Eijndhoven, J. 1997. “Technology Assessment: Product or Process?” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54 (2): 269–286. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00210-7
148. Van Eijndhoven, J. 2000. “The Netherlands: Technology Assessment from Academically Oriented Analyses to Support of Public Debate.” In Parliaments and Technology: The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe, edited by N., Vig and H., Paschen, 147–172. Albany, NY: The State University of New York Press.
149. Van Gorp, A. C., 2005. Ethical Issues in Engineering Design; Safety and Sustainability. Vol. 2. Delft: 3TU Ethics.
150. Van Oudheusden, M. 2014. “Where are the Politics in Responsible Innovation? European Governance, Technology Assessments, and Beyond.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 67–86. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.882097
151. Viseu, A., and H., Maguire. 2012. “Integrating and Enacting ‘Social and Ethical Issues’ in Nanotechnology Practices.” NanoEthics 6 (3): 195–209. doi: 10.1007/s11569-012-0162-2
152. Von Schomberg, R. 2013. “A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by Richard, Owen, John, Bessant, and Maggy, Heintz, 51–74. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
153. Voss, J.-P., D., Bauknecht, and R., Kemp. 2006. Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
154. Wickson, F., A. L., Carew, and Russell, A. W., 2006. “Transdisciplinary Research: Characteristics, Quandaries and Quality.” Futures 38 (9): 1046–1059. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2006.02.011
155. Wiek, Arnim, Barry, Ness, Petra, Schweizer-Ries, and Francesca Farioli. 2014. “Collaboration for Transformation.” Sustainability Science 9 (1): 113–114. doi: 10.1007/s11625-013-0231-7
156. Williams, Robin, and David Edge. 1996. “The Social Shaping of Technology.” Research Policy 25 (6): 865–899. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(96)00885-2
157. Wynne, B. 2011. “Lab Work goes Social, and Vice Versa: Strategising Public Engagement Processes.” Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 791–800. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9316-9
158. Zuiderent-Jerak, T. 2007. “Preventing Implementation: Exploring Interventions with Standardization in Healthcare.” Science as Culture 16 (3): 311–329. doi: 10.1080/09505430701568719