From Ethnography to Engagement: The Lab as a Site of Intervention

Gjefsen, Mads Dahl; Fisher, Elizabeth

doi:10.1080/09505431.2014.926147

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…emphasize the importance of engaging the reflexive capacities of expert practitioners themselves, including within socialization and training sites such as laboratories that are focused solely on basic or fundamental science (Gjefsen and Fisher 2014). A groundswell of science and technology policies throughout the industrialized world, including high-level prescriptions in the USA and Europe, have recently mandated socio-technical integration in an attempt to address societal concerns associated with public investments in science and innovation (Fisher 2011;Macnaghten, Kearnes, and Wynne 2005;Rodriguez, Fisher, and Schuurbiers 2013).…”

Section: Calls For Socio-technical Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Fisher

O’Rourke

Evans

et al. 2015

Journal of Responsible Innovation

Self Cite

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Calls For Socio-technical Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Fisher

O’Rourke

Evans

et al. 2015

Journal of Responsible Innovation

Self Cite

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this sense, what is central to this interpretation is the notion of human agency that casts the attention on “purposive acts of knowledgeable agents that intervene in the relevant process and that, at any point in time, could have acted otherwise” ( Giddens 1979 ; Pandza and Ellwood 2013 ). The centrality of human agency implies reconsidering what responsible research may stand for, as it may refer to a variety of issues, which are rooted, and therefore inseparable from the way in which researchers and other parties concerned go about their own day-to-day activities ( Gjefsen and Fisher 2014 ). In the technocratic approach, as we noted above, the emphasis is placed upon techniques like for instance those related to managing and assessing risks.…”

Section: Conceptions Of Intervention and Models Of Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this respect, RRI seems to represent a major step forward in comparison with other applied ethics approaches, because it places more emphasis on the process of research and innovation ( Gjefsen and Fisher 2014 ; Oftedal 2014 ). We may call this “embeddedness”.…”

Section: Normative Commitment and The Role Of Ethicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a phronetic space for responsible research (and innovation)

Bardone

Lind

2016

Life Sci Soc Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term Responsible Research and Innovation has recently gained currency, as it has been designated to be a key-term in the European research framework Horizon 2020. At the level of European research policy, Responsible Research and Innovation can be viewed as an attempt to reach a broader vision of research and innovation as a public good. The current academic debate may be fairly enriched by considering the role that phronesis may have for RRI. Specifically, in this paper we argue that the current debate might be fruitfully enriched by making a categorial shift. Such a categorial shift involves moving away from the temptation to interpret responsible research and innovation in a technocratic way towards a more pluralistic vision that is rooted in the idea of phronesis. In the present context phronesis points the attention to the cultivation and nurturement of the researcher’s formation as a type of engagement with the actual practice of researching, a practice in which researchers (and other parties concerned) are called to apply judgment and exercise discretion in specific and often unique situations without the re-assuring viewpoint of the technician.

show abstract

“…For many STS researchers, understanding the social nature of science and technology is continuous with promoting socially responsible science. Whereas modest versions of the engaged programme address issues that are politically topical, stronger versions, such as action-oriented science studies [34], interactive social science [35], or engagement research [36], involve active engagement in the fields under study. Researchers who pursue the stronger version of the engaged programme have addressed the challenging dynamics of positioning themselves in collaborative work so as to navigate between armchair critique and loss of critical distance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generative Critique in Interdisciplinary Collaborations: From Critique in and of the Neurosciences to Socio-Technical Integration Research as a Practice of Critique in R(R)I

Smolka

2020

Nanoethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discourses on Responsible Innovation andResponsible Research and Innovation, in short R(R)I, have revolved around but not elaborated on the notion of critique. In this article, generative critique is introduced to R(R)I as a practice that sits in-between adversarial armchair critique and co-opted, uncritical service. How to position oneself and be positioned on this spectrum has puzzled humanities scholars and social scientists who engage in interdisciplinary collaborations with scientists, engineers, and other professionals. Recently, generative critique has been presented as a solution to the puzzle in interdisciplinary collaborations on neuroscientific experiments. Generative critique seeks to create connections across disciplines that help remake seemingly stable objects in moments when taken-forgranted ways of seeing and approaching objects are unsettled. In order to translate generative critique from the neurosciences to R(R)I, socio-technical integration research (STIR) is proposed as a practice of generative critique in interdisciplinary R(R)I collaborations. These collaborations aim to account for societal aspects in research and technology development. For this purpose, a variety of approaches have been developed, including STIR and video-reflexive ethnography (VRE). STIR and VRE resemble each other but diverge on affective, collaborative, and temporal dimensions. Their juxtaposition serves to develop suggestions for how STIR could be modified on these dimensions to better enact generative critique in interdisciplinary R(R)I collaborations. In this way, the article contributes to ongoing discussions in R(R)I and in the engaged programme in science and technology studies more broadly on the dynamics of positioning in collaborative work.

show abstract

From Ethnography to Engagement: The Lab as a Site of Intervention

Cited by 9 publications

References 34 publications

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

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

Towards a phronetic space for responsible research (and innovation)

Generative Critique in Interdisciplinary Collaborations: From Critique in and of the Neurosciences to Socio-Technical Integration Research as a Practice of Critique in R(R)I

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About