Engagement Agents in the Making: On the Front Lines of Socio-Technical Integration
- Shannon N. Conley
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
This commentary builds on Haico te Kulve and Arie Rip’s (2011) notion of “engagement agents,” individuals that must be able to move between multiple dimensions, or “levels” of research, innovation, and policy processes. The commentary compares and contrasts the role of the engagement agent within the Constructive Technology Assessment and integration approaches, and suggests that on-site integration research represents one way to transform both social and natural scientists into competent and informed “engagement agents,” a new generation of researchers that possess the knowledge and capacities to forge “novel linkages” between the oftentimes disparate terrains of science, politics, and policy.
- Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C., & Guston, D. H. (2008). Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science, technology studies (Third Edition ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Collins, H., Evans, R., Ribeiro, R., & Hall, M. (2006). Experiments with Interactional Expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 656–674. CrossRef
- Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296. CrossRef
- Fisher, E. (2007). Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics, 1(2), 155. CrossRef
- Fisher, E., & Miller, C. A. (2009). Contextualizing the engineering laboratory. In S. H. Christensen, M. Meganck, & B. Delahousse (Eds.), Engineering in context (pp. 369–381). Palo Alto, CA: Academica Press.
- Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26(6), 485–496. CrossRef
- Guston, D. H. (2008). Innovation policy: Not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature, 454(7207), 940. CrossRef
- Jasanoff, S. (2011). Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17 (this issue).
- Rip, A., & te Kulve, H. (2008). Constructive Technology Assessment and Socio-Technical Scenarios. The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume 1: Presenting Futures (pp. 49–70). Berlin: Springer. CrossRef
- Schuurbiers, D. (2011). What happens in the lab does not stay in the lab: applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17 (this issue).
- Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(23), 251–268. CrossRef
- Schuurbiers, D., & Fisher, E. (2009). Lab-scale intervention. EMBO Reports, 10(5), 424. CrossRef
- STIR: SocioTechnical Integration Research. http://cns.asu.edu/stir/.
- Te Kulve, H., & Rip, A. (2011). Constructing productive engagement: Pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17 (this issue).
- Engagement Agents in the Making: On the Front Lines of Socio-Technical Integration
Science and Engineering Ethics
Volume 17, Issue 4 , pp 715-721
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Constructive technology assessment
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University, Interdisciplinary B Room 366, 1120 S Cady Mall, Tempe, AZ, 85287-5603, USA