SEESHOP Publication6 March 2015
SEESHOP 7, which was held in Tempe (Arizona) in May 2013, was co-located with several other research groups interested in expertise and interdisciplinary working. One aim of the joint meeting was to develop a paper that would map out the common ground between the groups, identifying what they shared but also what made each distinct.
It took some doing, and many thanks must go to Erik Fisher for keeping the dream alive, but it worked. The paper — Mapping the Integrative Field — is now published in the Journal of Responsible Innovation as
Fisher, Erik, Michael O’Rourke, Robert Evans, Eric B. Kennedy, Michael E. Gorman, and Thomas P. Seager. “Mapping the Integrative Field: Taking Stock of Socio-Technical Collaborations.” Journal of Responsible Innovation, March 2, 2015, 1–23. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.1001671.
Please download and cite widely!
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.
socio-technical integration; collaboration; transdisciplinarity; public engagement; technology assessment.