Engagement Agents in the Making: On the Front Lines of Socio-Technical Integration
- 195 Downloads
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.
KeywordsEngagement Integration Genetics Constructive technology assessment
- 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
- 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
- Jasanoff, S. (2011). Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17 (this issue).Google Scholar
- 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
- 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).Google Scholar