Search results

Inga Ulnicane New technologies are usually developed with the best intentions in mind. However, as history shows this does not prevent from afterwards using them in problematic ways. For example, internet was initially associated with hopes that it will foster openness and democracy around the world but later became used as a tool of surveillance […]
The post Interdisciplinary collaborations for responsible research and innovation appeared first on Europe of Knowledge.

Reports from integrative researchers who have followed calls for sociotechnical integration emphasize that the potential of interdisciplinary collaboration to inflect the social shaping of technoscience is often constrained by their liminal position. Integrative researchers tend to be positioned as either adversarial outsiders or co-opted insiders. In an attempt to navigate these dynamics, we show that attending to affective disturbances can open up possibilities for productive engagements across disciplinary divides. Drawing on the work of Helen Verran, we analyze "disconcertment" in three sociotechnical integration research studies. We develop a heuristic that weaves together disconcertment, affective labor, and responsivity to analyze the role of the body in interdisciplinary collaborations. We draw out how bodies do affective labor when generating responsivity between collaborators in moments of disconcertment. Responsive bodies can function as sensors, sources, and processors of disconcerting experiences of difference. We further show how attending to disconcertment can stimulate methodological choices to recognize, amplify, or minimize the difference between collaborators. Although these choices are context-dependent, each one examined generates responsivity that supports collaborators to readjust the technical in terms of the social. This analysis contributes to science and technology studies scholarship on the role of affect in successes and failures of interdisciplinary collaboration.

Introduction : Investigating Interdisciplinarities / Scott Frickel, Mathieu Albert, and Barbara Prainsack -- New Directions, New Challenges : Trials and Tribulations of Interdisciplinary Research / Dave McBee and Erin Leahey -- The Frictions of Interdisciplinarity : The Case of the Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery / Gregory J. Downey, Noah Weeth Feinstein, Daniel Lee Kleinman, Sigrid Peterson, and Chisato Fukuda -- Epistemic Cultures of Collaboration : Coherence and Ambiguity in Interdisciplinarity / Laurel Smith-Doerr, Jennifer Croissant, Itai Vardi, and Timothy Sacco -- Interdisciplinary Fantasy : Social Scientists and Humanities Scholars Working in Faculties of Medicine / Mathieu Albert, Elise Paradis, and Ayelet Kuper -- Some Dark Sides of Interdisciplinarity : The Case of Behavior Genetics / Aaron Panofsky -- A Dynamic, Multidimensional Approach to Knowledge Production / Ryan Light and Jimi Adams -- Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Change in Six Social Sciences : A Longitudinal Comparison / Scott Frickel and Ali O. Ilhan -- "An Electro-Historical Focus with Real Interdisciplinary Appeal" : Interdisciplinarity at Vietnam-Era Stanford / Cyrus C. M. Mody -- Interdisciplinarity Reloaded? : Drawing Lessons from "Citizen Science" / Barbara Prainsack and Hauke Riesch -- One Medicine? : Advocating (Inter)Disciplinarity at the Interfaces of Animal Health, Human Health, and the Environment / Angela Cassidy

Intro -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- List of Figures -- Chapter 1 Finding Ourselves in the Messy Entanglement of Complexity: An Introduction to the Challenges and Opportunities in Social Ecological Systems -- Context in Which We Write the Book -- Why This Book -- Approach Taken in the Book -- Who Is the Book for? -- Structure of the Book and the Function of Each Chapter -- References -- Chapter 2 Engaging with a Social Ecological System: The Swamp -- The Biophysical Setting -- The Social Setting -- Example Narratives About Tarerer/Kelly Swamp -- Scientists -- Farmers -- Artists -- The Gunditjmara -- References -- Chapter 3 A Critical Reflection on Social Ecological Research and Turning to Practice -- Embedded Assumptions in the Language of Social Ecological Systems Research -- Examples of the Difficulty with Language in Practice: Non-linearity -- Critical Reflection for Social Ecological Systems Research -- A New Chapter of Social Ecological Interdisciplinarity -- Bringing Critical Reflection to the Ordering of Knowledge -- Turning Away from the Assumption of Social and Ecological Determinism -- Structure and Function -- Attending to Time in Social Ecological Research -- Centring on Learning and Practice: Turning to an Epistemology of Practice -- References -- Chapter 4 Adaptive Doing: Reimagining Social Ecological Practice -- Adaptive Doing: a Process for Changing and Integrating Knowledge and Practice -- The Agora: a Deliberate Space for Creating Change in Understanding -- Navigating Adaptive Doing: Engaging Process in the Agora -- Phase A-Disrupting the Status Quo: Invoking the Agora -- Phase B-Engaging in the Agora: Critical Reflection and Discussion -- Phase C-Orienting to Understandings of a Shared Concern -- Three Reframing Tools for Fostering Critical Reflection -- Phase D-Returning to Practice: Embracing a Changed Perspective.

The importance of professional disciplines working together to address the critical social and health issues facing society today cannot be overstated. Policy makers, service providers and researchers have long been calling for greater interdisciplinary collaboration. Despite this there has been little systemic analysis of the constraints involved in such collaboration. Far too often disciplines continue to work in silos. This paper aims to analyse the barriers to interdisciplinary collaboration through a case study of the relationship between social work and public health. These two disciplines have a lot more in common than might first appear. There is real potential for social work and public health to work together and enhance each other's efforts to address their common goal of greater social equality. However, this will require a genuine commitment from both disciplines to develop a shared political analysis, common language and a framework for action, which utilises their respective strengths.