Suchergebnisse

While technological innovation is a core element of efforts to increase public welfare, innovators are rarely trained to take the societal dimensions of innovation into account in a systematic manner. Responsible innovation has emerged within policy discourses worldwide to address this challenge. Implementing responsible innovation in daily practices, however, requires addressing both the multidisciplinary and the culturally situated nature of innovation processes. Effectiveness of Socio-Technical Integration Research (STIR) has been tested, but primarily only in developed countries, raising questions about how well it works in innovation and cultural settings differing from Western cultures. Therefore, this study analyzes the possibities of institutionalizing responsible innovation in an Eastern European country, namely in Hungary. For this investigation, we conducted STIR-pilots in two Hungarian natural science research groups. The findings show that though the original STIR method can be adapted to support responsible innovation practices in Hungary, the differences in the innovation environment and culture (such as grant-driven innovation; lack of trust; less knowledge on responsible innovation; lack of law on the societical impacts of research and innovaton) require methodological modifications in order to improve STIR's effectiveness.

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.

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.

Public "upstream engagement" and other approaches to the social control of technology are currently receiving international attention in policy discourses around emerging technologies such as nanotechnology. To the extent that such approaches hold implications for research and development (R&D) activities, the distinct participation of scientists and engineers is required. The capacity of technoscientists to broaden the influences on R&D activities, however, implies that they conduct R&D differently. This article discusses the possibility for more reflexive participation by scientists and engineers in the internal governance of technology development. It reviews various historical attempts to govern technoscience and introduces the concept of midstream modulation, through which scientists and engineers, ideally in concert with others, bring societal considerations to bear on their work.

This article looks at the creation of a network of researchers of social issues in nanotechnology and the role of the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (CNS-ASU) in the creation of this network. The extent to which CNS-ASU is associated with the development of a research network around the study of social issues in nanotechnology is examined through geographic mapping of co-authors and citations of center publications, network analysis of co-authors of papers on social issues in nanotechnology, and a disciplinary analysis of these papers. The results indicate that there is an extensive network of co-authorships among researchers studying social issues in nanotechnology with CNS-ASU at the center of this network. In addition, papers written by center members and affiliates integrate a diverse range of disciplines. Qualitative data are used to interpret some of the ways that citation occurs.