Responsible innovation requires that scientific and other expert practices be responsive to society. We take stock of various collaborative approaches to socio-technical integration that seek to broaden the societal contexts technical experts take into account during their routine activities. Part of a larger family of engaged scholarship that includes inter-and transdisciplinarity as well as stakeholder and public engagement, we distinguish collaborative socio-technical integration in terms of its proximity to and transformation of expert practices. We survey a variety of approaches that differ widely in terms of their integrative methods, conceptions of societal context, roles, and aspirations for intervention. Taking a handful of "communities of integration" as exemplars, we then provide a framework for comparing the forms, means, and ends of collaborative integration. We conclude by reflecting on some of the main features of, and tensions within, this developing arena of practical inquiry and engagement and what this suggests for integrative efforts aimed at responsible innovation.

The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the 'permanent WRAP url' above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.

No abstract

No abstract

On behalf of two networks of disabled academics, we call on universities, funding bodies and conference organizers to provide more effective support during the COVID-19 pandemic. Funders should include specific provisions for disabled researchers, online conferences and the ability to work from home need to continue.Disabled academics have experienced disproportionate disruption to their work. We should be granted funding extensions of at least six months to cover any loss in productivity. The requirement for medical evidence to support an extension should be dropped. Non-urgent medical appointments are hard to get -and seeing a doctor poses a risk of infection. If we are less productive during this time, it should not affect our future applications. Funders recognize that the pandemic is causing havoc for some (H. O. Witteman et al. Nature 587, 197; 2020).During the pandemic, the right to work from home, have rolling deadlines and attend remote events has been essential. We have seen that these changes can be implemented if necessary (see, for example, A. Shew Nature 581, 9; 2020). It is crucial that more changes are made as soon as possible and continue beyond the easing of lockdowns and social-distancing measures.

Managing the COVID-19 pandemic—and other communicable diseases—involves broad societal uptake of vaccines. As has been demonstrated, however, vaccine uptake is often uneven and incomplete across populations. This is a substantial challenge that must be addressed by public health efforts. To this point, significant research has focused on demographic and attitudinal correlates with vaccine hesitancy to understand uptake patterns. In this study, however, we advance understandings of individual decision-making processes involved in vaccine uptake through a mixed-methods investigation of the role of timing in COVID-19 vaccine choices. In the first step, a survey experiment, we find the timing of vaccine rollout (i.e., when a vaccine becomes available to the respondent) has a significant impact on public decision-making. Not only is there a higher level of acceptance when the vaccine becomes available at a later time, but delayed availability is correlated with both lower levels of ‘desire to wait’ and ‘total rejection’ of the vaccine. In a second step, we explore associated qualitative data, finding that temporal expressions (i.e., professing a desire to wait) can serve as a proxy for underlying non-temporal rationales, like concerns around safety, efficacy, personal situations, or altruism. By identifying these patterns, as well as the complexities of underlying factors, through a mixed-methods investigation, we can inform better vaccine-related policy and public messaging, as well as enhance our understanding of how individuals make decisions about vaccines in the context of COVID-19.

In this chapter, the authors focus on how SciStarter has developed a new digital infrastructure to support sustained engagement in citizen science, and research into the behaviors and motivations of participants. The new digital infrastructure of SciStarter includes integrated registration and contribution tracking tools to make it easier to participate in multiple projects, enhanced GIS information to promote locally relevant projects, an online personal dashboard to keep track of contributions, and the use of these tools (integrated registration, GIS, dashboard) by project owners and researchers to better understand and respond to the needs and interests of citizen-science participants. In this chapter, the authors explore how these new tools build pathways to participatory policymaking, expand access to informal STEM experiences, and lower barriers to citizen science. The chapter concludes with a design for a citizen-science future with increased access to tools, trackable participation, and integrated competencies.

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak has resulted in a massive amount of global research on the social and human dimensions of the disease. Between academic researchers, governments, and polling firms, thousands of survey projects have been launched globally, tracking aspects like public opinion, social impacts, and drivers of disease transmission and mitigation. This deluge of research has created numerous potential risks and problems, including methodological concerns, duplication of efforts, and inappropriate selection and application of social science research techniques. Such concerns are more acute when projects are launched under the auspices of quick response, time-pressured conditions–and are magnified when such research is often intended for rapid public and policy-maker consumption, given the massive public importance of the topic.