Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: HM, T1
Responsible innovation requires that scientific and other expert practices be responsive to\ud society. We take stock of a variety of collaborative approaches to socio-technical integration\ud that seek to broaden the societal contexts technical experts take into account during their\ud routine activities. Part of a larger family of engaged scholarship that includes inter- and\ud trans-disciplinarity as well as stakeholder and public engagement, we distinguish\ud collaborative socio-technical integration in terms of its proximity to and transformation of\ud expert practices. We survey a variety of approaches that differ widely in terms of their\ud integrative methods, conceptions of societal context, roles, and aspirations for intervention.\ud Taking a handful of “communities of integration” as exemplars, we then provide a\ud framework for comparing the forms, means, and ends of collaborative integration. We\ud conclude by reflecting on some of the main features of, and tensions within, this developing\ud arena of practical inquiry and engagement and what this suggests for integrative efforts\ud aimed at responsible innovation.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Balmer, A. S., & Bulpin, K. J. (2013). Left to their own devices: Post-ELSI, ethical equipment and the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) Competition. BioSocieties, 8(3), 311-335.
    • Balmer, A., Bulpin, K., Calvert, J., Kearnes, M., Mackenzie, A., Marris, C., Martin, P., MolyneuxHodgson, S., & Schyfter, P. (2012). Towards a Manifesto for Experimental Collaborations between Social and Natural Scientists. http://experimentalcollaborations.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/towards-amanifesto-for-experimental-collaborations-between-social-and-natural-scientists/
    • Bammer, G. (2013) Disciplining Interdisciplinarity. Canberra: ANU E-Press.
    • Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C., & Guston, D. H. (2008). Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In O. A. E. Hackett, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Ed.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 979-1000). Cambridge: MIT Press.
    • Bennett, I., & Sarewitz, D. (2006). Too little, too late? Research policies on the societal implications of nanotechnology in the United States. Science as Culture, 15(4), 309- 325.
    • Bergmann, M., Jahn, T., Knobloch, T., Krohn, W., Pohl, C., & Schramm, E. (2012). Methods for transdisciplinary research: A primer for practice. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag.
    • Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press.
    • Bijker, W. E., & d'Andrea, L. (2009). Handbook on the Socialisation of Scientific and Technological Research. Rome: River Press Group.
    • 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, Tsjalling Swierstra., pp. 57-78. Palgrave Macmillan: New York
    • Bracken, C.J., and Oughton, E.A. (2006). '“What do you mean?” The importance of language in developing interdisciplinary research', Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31: 371-382.
    • Bronk, D. W. (1975). “The National Science Foundation: Origins, hopes, and aspirations.” Science 188:409-414.
    • Calvert, J. (2013). "Collaboration as a research method? Navigating social scientific involvement in synthetic biology." Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory. Springer Netherlands. 175-194.
    • Calvert, J. & Martin, P. (2009). "The role of social scientists in synthetic biology." EMBO reports 10(3): 201-204.
    • Caudill, D. S. (2009). “Synthetic Science: A Response to Rabinow,” Law and Literature 21(3): 431-444
    • Cho, M. K., Tobin, S. L., Greely, H. T., McCormick, J., Boyce, A., & Magnus, D. (2008). Strangers at the benchside: Research ethics consultation. The American Journal of Bioethics, 8(3), 4-13.
    • Collins, H. (2011). Language and practice. Social Studies of Science 41(2): 271-300.
    • Collins, H. (2004). Interactional expertise as a third kind of knowledge. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 3(2), 125-143.
    • Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2014). Quantifying the tacit: The imitation game and social fluency. Sociology, 48(1), 3-19.
    • Collins, H M & Evans, R J. (2007). Rethinking Expertise, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
    • Collins, H M & Evans, R J. (2002). 'The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience', Social Studies of Sciences, 32 (2): 235-96.
    • Collins, H., & Sanders, G. (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.
    • Collins, H., Evans, R., & Gorman, M. (2007). Trading zones and interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 38(4), 657-666.
    • Collins, H., Evans, R., Ribeiro, R., & Hall, M. (2006). Experiments with interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 37(4), 656-674.
    • Crowley, S., Eigenbrode, S. D., O'Rourke, M., Wulfhorst, J. D. (2010). Localization in crossdisciplinary research: A philosophical approach. Multilingual, 114, available online at http://www.multilingual.com/downloads/114LCDR.pdf.
    • Darling, K. W., Boyce, A. M., Cho, M. K., & Sankar, P. L. (2014). “What is the FDA Going to Think?” Negotiating Values through Reflective and Strategic Category Work in Microbiome Science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 0162243914545405.
    • Doorn, N, Van den Poel, I., Scuurbiers, D. Gorman, M.E. (Eds.). (2013). (Opening up the laboratory: Approaches for early engagement with new technologies. Springer.
    • Doubleday, R. (2007). The laboratory revisited. NanoEthics, 1(2), 167-176.
    • Doubleday, R. &Viseu, A. (2009). "Questioning interdisciplinarity: What roles for laboratory based social science." Nano meets macro: Social perspectives on nano sciences and technologies. Singapore: Pan Stanford Publishing. pp. 51-75.
    • European Commission. (2007). Work Programme 2007, Capacities, Part 5: Science in Society. The Seventh Framework Programme, Brussels.
    • Eigenbrode, S., M. O'Rourke, J. D. Wulfhorst, D. M. Althoff, C. S. Goldberg, K. Merrill, W. Morse, M. Nielsen-Pincus, J. Stephens, L. Winowiecki, N. A. Bosque-Pérez. 2007. Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. BioScience, 57: 55-64.
    • Evans, Robert and Marvin, Simon. (2006). Researching the Sustainable City: Three Modes of Interdisciplinarity, Environment and Planning (A), 38(6): 1009-1028. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a37317.
    • 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.
    • Falk-Krzesinski, H. J., Contractor, N., Fiore, S. M., Hall, K. L., Kane, C., Keyton, J., Klein, J. T., Spring, B., Stokols, D., Trochim, W. (2011). Mapping a research agenda for the science of team science. Research Evaluation, 20(2): 145-158.
    • Fehr, C. (2011). What is in it for me? The benefits of diversity in scientific communities. Springer Netherlands.
    • Fehr, C., & Plaisance, K. S. (2010). Socially relevant philosophy of science: an introduction. Synthese, 177(3), 301-316.
    • Felt, U. (2014). Within, across and beyond: Reconsidering the role of social sciences and humanities in Europe. Science as Culture, 23(3), 384-396.
    • Fisher, E. (2014) Invited testimony. The presidential commission for the study of bioethical issues, Sixteenth Meeting, February 11. Washington, DC.
    • Fisher, E. (2011). “Public Science and Technology Scholars: Engaging Whom?” Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 607-620.
    • Fisher, E. (2007). “Ethnographic Invention: Probing the Capacity of Laboratory Decisions.” NanoEthics 1(2): 155-165.
    • Fisher, E., Biggs, S., Lindsay, S. & Zhao, J. (2010). "Research thrives on integration of natural and social sciences." Nature 463: 25.
    • Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. (2010). Embedding the humanities in engineering: Art, dialogue, and a laboratory. In Trading zones and interactional expertise: Creating new kinds of collaboration, 209-230. MIT Press.
    • Fisher, E. & Mahajan, R.L. (2006). “Contradictory Intent? U.S. Federal Legislation on Integrating Societal Concerns into Nanotechnology Research and Development.” Science and Public Policy 33(1): 5-16.
    • Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology: governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society,26(6), 485-496.
    • Fisher, E., & Maricle, G. (2014). Higher-level responsiveness? Socio-technical integration within US and UK nanotechnology research priority setting. Science and Public Policy. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scu017 (First published online: April 28, 2014)
    • Fisher, E. & Miller, C. (2009). Contextualizing the Engineering Laboratory. In Engineering in Context, Academica: Aarhus. Pages 369-382.
    • Fisher, E. & Rip, A. (2013). “Responsible Innovation: Multi-Level Dynamics and Soft Interventions.” In Owen, R. Heintz, M. and Bessant, J. (Eds.), Responsible Innovation. Chichester: Wiley. 165-183.
    • Fisher, E., & Schuurbiers, D. (2013). Socio-technical Integration Research: Collaborative Inquiry at the Midstream of Research and Development. In Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory (pp. 97-110). Springer Netherlands.
    • Fletcher, J. C., and Siegler, M. (1996). What are the goals of ethics consultation? A consensus statement. J Clinical Ethics 7: 122- 126.
    • Flipse, S. M., van der Sanden, M. C., & Osseweijer, P. (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.
    • Flipse, S. M., van der Sanden, M. C., & Osseweijer, P. (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.
    • Friedman, B., Kahn Jr, P. H., Borning, A., & Huldtgren, A. (2013). "Value sensitive design and information systems." In Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory, pp. 55-95. Springer Netherlands.
    • Friedman, B., Kahn JR, P. H., & Borning, A. (2008). Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems. The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics, pp. 69-101. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
    • Friedman, B. (1996). "Value-sensitive design." Interactions 3(6): 16-23.
    • Frodeman, R. (2010). Experiments in field philosophy. The Stone, New York Times, November 23.
    • Frodeman R., Klein, J. T., Mitcham, C. (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Funtowicz, Silvio, and Jerome Ravetz. (2001). "Post-normal science. Science and Governance under conditions of complexity." In Decker, M. (ed) Interdisciplinarity in Technology Assessment: Implementation and its Chances and Limits. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 15-24
    • Funtowicz, Silvio O. and Ravetz, Jerome R. (1993). Science in the Post-Normal Age. Futures, 25(7): 739-55.
    • Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. University of Chicago Press.
    • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    • 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.
    • Goorden, L., Van Oudheusden, M., Evers, J., & Deblonde, M. (2008). "Nanotechnologies for tomorrow's society: A case for reflective action research in Flanders, Belgium." The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume I: Presenting Futures. Springer Netherlands. 163-182.
    • Gorman, M.E. (Editor). (2010). Trading zones and interactional expertise: Creating new kinds of collaboration. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
    • Gorman, M. (2002). Levels of Expertise and Trading Zones. Social Studies of Science 32(6): 933-938
    • Gregory, R., Long, G., Colligan, M., Geiger, J. G., Laser, M. (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.
    • Guston, D. H., Fisher, E., Grunwald, A., Owen, R., Swierstra, T., & van der Burg, S. (2014). Responsible innovation: motivations for a new journal. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1), 1-8.
    • Guston, D. H. "Understanding 'anticipatory governance'." Social Studies of Science 44.2 (2014): 218-242.
    • Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in society, 24(1), 93-109.
    • Hackett, E. J. (2014). "The Vilnius Declaration." Science, Technology & Human Values 39(1): 3-5.
    • Hackett, E. J., & Rhoten, D. R. (2011). Engaged, embedded, enjoined: Science and technology studies in the national science foundation. Science and engineering ethics, 17(4), 823- 838.
    • Hess, David J. (2001). 'Ethnography and the Development of Science and Technology Studies' in Paul Atkinson, Amanda Coffey, Sara Delamont, John Lofland, and Lyn Lofland (eds) Sage Handbook of Ethnography. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: SAGE Publications, 2001. Pp. 234-245.
    • Hollander, R. D., & Steneck, N. H. (1990). Science-and engineering-related ethics and values studies: Characteristics of an emerging field of research. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 84-104.
    • Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development, London and New York: Routledge.
    • Jasanoff, S. (2011). "Constitutional moments in governing science and technology." Science and engineering ethics 17(4): 621-638.
    • Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press. Chicago.
    • Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: the co-production of science and the social order. Routledge.
    • Juengst, E T. (1991). The Human Genome Project and Bioethics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1: 71-74.
    • Kleinman, D. L., ed. (2000). Science, technology, and democracy. Albany, New York: SUNY Press.
    • Kleinman, D. L. (1998). Beyond the science wars: contemplating the democratization of science. Politics and the Life Sciences, 133-145.
    • Khushf, G. (2007). Upstream ethics in nanomedicine: a call for research. Nanomedicine 2(4):511-521
    • Krabbenborg, L. (2013). "Dramatic Rehearsal on the Societal Embedding of the Lithium Chip." Ethics on the Laboratory Floor: 168-183.
    • Lempert, R., Groves, D., Popper, S., Bankes, S., (2006). A general, analytical method for generating robust strategies and narrative scenarios. Manage. Sci. 52, 514-528.
    • Lempert, R. J., Popper, S. W., Bankes, S. C. (2003). Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative, Long-Term Policy Analysis. RAND MR-1626. Online at .
    • Levidow, Les & Claudia Neubauer. (2014). "EU Research Agendas: Embedding What Future?." Science as Culture 23(3): 397-412.
    • Looney, C., Donovan, S., O'Rourke, M., Crowley, S., Eigenbrode, S. D., Rotschy, L., BosquePérez, N., Wulfhorst, J. D. (2013). Seeing through the eyes of collaborators: Using Toolbox workshops to enhance cross-disciplinary communication. In M. O'Rourke, S. Crowley, S. D. Eigenbrode, and J. D. Wulfhorst, eds. Enhancing Communication and Collaboration in Interdisciplinary Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. pp 220-243.
    • Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M. B., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences?. Science communication, 27(2), 268-291.
    • 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.
    • Mejlgaard, N., Bloch, C., Degn, L., Ravn, T., & Nielsen, M. W. (2012). Monitoring Policy and Research Activities on Science in Society in Europe (MASIS): Final synthesis report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/document_library/pdf_06/monitoring-policy-research-activities-onsis_en.pdf
    • Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. University of Chicago Press.
    • Morse, W. C., Nielsen-Pincus, M., Force, J. E., Wulfhorst, J. D. (2007). Bridges and barriers to developing and conducting interdisciplinary graduate-student team research. Ecology and Society 12: 8 (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art8/, 12 Jan 2008).
    • O'Rourke, M., Crowley, S. J. (2013). Philosophical intervention and cross-disciplinary science: The story of the Toolbox Project. Synthese 190: 1937-1954.
    • O'Rourke, M., Crowley, S., Eigenbrode, S. D., Wulfhorst, J. D. (Eds.) (2013). Enhancing Communication and Collaboration in Interdisciplinary Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
    • 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.
    • Owen, R. & Bessant, J. (Eds.) (2013). Responsible Innovation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 27-50.
    • Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghten, P., Gorman, M., Fisher, E. & Guston, D. (2013). A Framework for Responsible Innovation. In Responsible Innovation. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
    • Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751-760.
    • Paletz, S., Smith-Doerr, L., & Vardi, I. (2010). National Science Foundation workshop report : Interdisciplinary collaboration in innovation science and engineering fields. Online : http://www.csid.unt.edu/nsf/nsf-workshop-report.pdf
    • 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.
    • Pielke, R. A. (2007). The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Plaisance, K. S., Fehr, C. (Eds.) (2010). Making philosophy of science more socially relevant. Synthese 177: 301-492.
    • Plaisance, K. S., & Kennedy, E. B. (2014). A Pluralistic Approach to Interactional Expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 47, 60-68.
    • Pohl, C., Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2007). Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary Research. Munich: oekom verlag.
    • Rabinow, P. (2009) "Prosperity, amelioration, flourishing: From a logic of practical judgment to reconstruction." Law & Literature 21(3): 301-320.
    • Rabinow, P. & Bennett, G. (2012). Designing human practices: An experiment with synthetic biology. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
    • Rabinow, P. & Bennett, G. (2009a). "Human practices: Interfacing three modes of collaboration." In The ethics of protocells: Moral and social implications of creating life in the laboratory, Bedau, M. & Parke, E. C. (Eds). MIT Press. Cambridge. pp 263-290.
    • Rabinow, P. & Bennett, G. (2009b). "Synthetic biology: ethical ramifications 2009." Systems and synthetic biology 3.1-4: 99-108.
    • Rabinow, P., Bennett, G. & Stavrianakis, A. (2009). "Reply to the respondents." Law & Literature 2(3): 471-479.
    • Rabinow, P., & Stavrianakis, A. (2013). Demands of the day: On the logic of anthropological inquiry. University of Chicago Press.
    • Ribes, D and Baker, K. (2007) Modes of Social Science Engagement in Community Infrastructure Design Communities and Technologies 2007: Proceedings of the Third Communities and Technologies Conference, Michigan: Michigan State University.
    • Rip, A. (2009). Futures of ELSA. EMBO reports, 10(7), 666-670.
    • 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.
    • Rip, A. & van Lente, H. (2013). "Bridging the gap between innovation and ELSA: The TA program in the Dutch Nano-R&D program NanoNed."NanoEthics 7(1): 7-16.
    • 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, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer.
    • Rodríguez, H., Fisher, E. and Schuurbiers, D. (2013). “Integrating Science and Society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in Project-Level Solicitations.” Research Policy 42(5): 1126-1137.
    • Salazar, M. R., Lant, T. K., Fiore, S. M., Salas, E. (2012) Facilitating innovation in diverse science teams through integrative capacity. Small Group Research 43(5): 527-558.
    • Salazar, M. R., Lant, T. K., Kane, A. (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.
    • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
    • Schot, J & A. Rip. (1997). 'The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment,' Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 54, nos. 2&3, pp. 251-268.
    • Schuurbiers, D., & Fisher, E. (2009). Lab-scale intervention. EMBO reports, 10(5), 424-427.
    • Selinger, E., Dreyfus, H., & Collins, H. (2007). Interactional expertise and embodiment. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 38(4), 722-740.
    • Selinger, E., & Mix, J. (2004). On interactional expertise: Pragmatic and ontological considerations. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 3(2), 145-163.
    • Shilton, K. (2013). Values levers: building ethics into design. Science, Technology & Human Values, 38(3): 374-397
    • Sievanen, L., Campbell, L. M., Leslie, H. M. (2011). Challenges to interdisciplinary research in ecosystem-based management. Conservation Biology 26(2): 315-323.
    • Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568-1580.
    • Stegmaier, P. (2009). The rock 'n'roll of knowledge co-production. EMBO reports, 10(2), 114-119.
    • 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.
    • Stokols, D., Hall, K. L., Taylor, B. K., & Moser, R. P. (2008). The science of team science: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(2), S77-S89.
    • Stokols D, Fuqua J, Gress J, Harvey R, Phillips K, Baesconde-Garbanati L, Unger J, Palmer P, Clark MA, Colby SM, Morgan G, Trochim W. (2003). Evaluating transdisciplinary science. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 5: S21-S39.
    • 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 Igor Linkov (ed) Sustainable Cities and Military Installations. Netherlands: Springer. Pp. 79- 129.
    • 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 & Matthias Wienroth; IOS Press / AKA, Heidelberg. pp 219-235.
    • Tuma, Julio R. (2013). "Nanoethics in a Nanolab: Ethics via Participation." Science and engineering ethics 19(3): 983-1005.
    • US Congress, 2003. 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003. 2003. Public Law no 108-153, 117 STAT. 1923.
    • Valve, H. and McNally, R. (2013) Articulating scientific practice with PROTEE: STS, loyalties, and the limits of reflexivity, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 38(4), pp. 470- 491.
    • Van Der Burg, S. & Swierstra, T., eds. (2013). Ethics on the laboratory floor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    • Van de Poel, I., & Doorn, N. (2013). Ethical Parallel Research: A Network Approach for Moral Evaluation (NAME). In Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory (pp. 111-136). Springer Netherlands.
    • Van de Poel, I. & Verbeek, P-P. (2006). “Ethics and Engineering Design,” (special issue), Science, Technology & Human Values 31(3): 223-236.
    • van Eijndhoven, J. (2000). 'The Netherlands: Technology Assessment from Academically Oriented Analyses to Support of Public Debate,' in N. Vig and H. Paschen (eds) Parliaments and Technology: The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. Albany: The State University of New York Press. pp. 147-172
    • Van Eijndhoven, J. (1997). "Technology assessment: Product or process?."Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 54(2): 269-286.
    • van Gorp, A. C. (2005). Ethical issues in engineering design; safety and sustainability. Vol. 2. Delft: 3TU Ethics.
    • 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.
    • Viseu, A., & Maguire, H. (2012). Integrating and enacting 'Social and Ethical Issues' in nanotechnology practices. NanoEthics, 6(3), 195-209.
    • Von Schomberg, R. (2013). "A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Owen, Richard, John Bessant, and Maggy Heintz, eds. Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 51-74.
    • Voss, J.-P., Bauknecht, D., Kemp, R., (2006). Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK
    • Wickson, F., Carew, A. L., & Russell, A. W. (2006). Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures, 38(9), 1046-1059.
    • Wiek, Arnim, Barry Ness, Petra Schweizer-Ries & Francesca Farioli. (2014). Collaboration for transformation. Sustainability Science, 9(1): 113-114.
    • Williams, Robin, and David Edge. (1996). "The social shaping of technology." Research policy 25(6): 865-899.
    • Wynne, B. (2011). Lab work goes social, and vice versa: Strategising public engagement processes. Science and engineering ethics, 17(4), 791-800.
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Funded by projects

  • NSF | RCN-SEES: Sustainable Energ...
  • NSF | NSEC - Center for Nanotechn...
  • NSF | Improving Communication in ...
  • NSF | STIR: Socio-Technical Integ...

Cite this article