Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 715–721 | Cite as

Engagement Agents in the Making: On the Front Lines of Socio-Technical Integration

Commentary on: “Constructing Productive Engagement: Pre-engagement Tools for Emerging Technologies”
Original paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Engagement Integration Genetics Constructive technology assessment 

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Collins, H., Evans, R., Ribeiro, R., & Hall, M. (2006). Experiments with Interactional Expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 656–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fisher, E. (2007). Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics, 1(2), 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26(6), 485–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guston, D. H. (2008). Innovation policy: Not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature, 454(7207), 940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jasanoff, S. (2011). Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17 (this issue).Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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).Google Scholar
  11. Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(23), 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schuurbiers, D., & Fisher, E. (2009). Lab-scale intervention. EMBO Reports, 10(5), 424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. STIR: SocioTechnical Integration Research. http://cns.asu.edu/stir/.
  14. Te Kulve, H., & Rip, A. (2011). Constructing productive engagement: Pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17 (this issue).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Nanotechnology in SocietyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations