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

References

• Balmer, A. S., and K. J. Bulpin. 2013. “Left to Their Own Devices: Post-ELSI, Ethical Equipment and the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) Competition.” BioSocieties 8 (3): 311–335. doi: 10.1057/biosoc.2013.13
   Google Scholar
• Balmer, A., K. Bulpin, J. Calvert, M. Kearnes, A. Mackenzie, C. Marris, P. Martin, S. Molyneux-Hodgson, and P. Schyfter. 2012. “Towards a Manifesto for Experimental Collaborations between Social and Natural Scientists.” http://experimentalcollaborations.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/towards-a-manifesto-for-experimental-collaborations-between-social-and-natural-scientists/
   Google Scholar
• Bammer, G. 2013. Disciplining Interdisciplinarity. Canberra: ANU E-Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barben, D., E. Fisher, C. Selin, and D. H. Guston. 2008. “Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by O. A. E. Hackett, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 979–1000. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, I., and D. Sarewitz. 2006. “Too Little, Too Late? Research Policies on the Societal Implications of Nanotechnology in the United States.” Science as Culture 15 (4): 309–325. doi: 10.1080/09505430601022635
   Google Scholar
• Bergmann, M., T. Jahn, T. Knobloch, W. Krohn, C. Pohl, and E. Schramm. 2012. Methods for Transdisciplinary Research: A Primer for Practice. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Bijker, W. E. 1995. Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. London: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bijker, W. E., and L. d'Andrea. 2009. Handbook on the Socialisation of Scientific and Technological Research. Rome: River Press Group.
   Google Scholar
• Boenink, M. 2013. “The Multiple Practices of Doing ‘Ethics in The Laboratory’: A Mid-Level Perspective.” In Ethics on the Laboratory Floor, edited by Simone van der Burg, and Tsjalling Swierstra, 57–78. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Bracken, C. J., and E. A. Oughton. 2006. “‘What Do You Mean?’ The Importance of Language in Developing Interdisciplinary Research.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31: 371–382. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00218.x
   Google Scholar
• Bronk, D. W. 1975. “The National Science Foundation: Origins, Hopes, and Aspirations.” Science 188: 409–414. doi: 10.1126/science.1091972
   Google Scholar
• Calvert, J. 2013. “Collaboration as a Research Method? Navigating Social Scientific Involvement in Synthetic Biology.” In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening Up the Laboratory, edited by Neelke Doorn, Daan Schuurbiers, Ibo van de Poel and Michael E. Gorman, 175–194. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Calvert, J., and P. Martin. 2009. “The Role of Social Scientists in Synthetic Biology.” EMBO Reports 10 (3): 201–204. doi: 10.1038/embor.2009.15
   Google Scholar
• Caudill, D. S. 2009. “Synthetic Science: A Response to Rabinow.” Law and Literature 21 (3): 431–444. doi: 10.1525/lal.2009.21.3.431
   Google Scholar
• Cho, M. K., S. L. Tobin, H. T. Greely, J. McCormick, A. Boyce, and D. Magnus. 2008. “Strangers at the Benchside: Research Ethics Consultation.” The American Journal of Bioethics 8 (3): 4–13. doi: 10.1080/15265160802109322
   Google Scholar
• Collins, H. 2004. “Interactional Expertise as a Third Kind of Knowledge.” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 3 (2): 125–143. doi: 10.1023/B:PHEN.0000040824.89221.1a
   Google Scholar
• Collins, H. 2011. “Language and Practice.” Social Studies of Science 41 (2): 271–300. doi: 10.1177/0306312711399665
   Google Scholar
• Collins, H. M., and R. J. Evans. 2002. “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience.” Social Studies of Sciences 32 (2): 235–296. doi: 10.1177/0306312702032002003
   Google Scholar
• Collins, H. M., and R. J. Evans. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, H., and R. Evans. 2014. “Quantifying the Tacit: The Imitation Game and Social Fluency.” Sociology 48 (1): 3–19. doi: 10.1177/0038038512455735
   Google Scholar
• Collins, H., R. Evans, and M. Gorman. 2007. “Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38 (4): 657–666. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2007.09.003
   Google Scholar
• Collins, H., R. Evans, R. Ribeiro, and M. Hall. 2006. “Experiments with Interactional Expertise.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37 (4): 656–674. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2006.09.005
   Google Scholar
• Collins, H., and G. Sanders. 2007. “They Give You the Keys and Say ‘Drive It!’ Managers, Referred Expertise, and Other Expertises.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38 (4): 621–641. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2007.09.002
   Google Scholar
• Crowley, S., S. D. Eigenbrode, M. O'Rourke, and J. D. Wulfhorst. 2010. “Localization in Cross-Disciplinary Research: A Philosophical Approach.” Multilingual 114. Accessed http://www.multilingual.com/downloads/114LCDR.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Darling, K. W., A. M. Boyce, M. K. Cho, and P. L. Sankar. 2014. “‘What is the FDA Going to Think?’ Negotiating Values through Reflective and Strategic Category Work in Microbiome Science.” Science, Technology & Human Values. doi:10.1177/0162243914545405.
   Google Scholar
• Doorn, N., I. van de Poel, D. Schuurbiers, and M. E. Gorman, eds. 2013. Opening Up the Laboratory: Approaches for Early Engagement with New Technologies. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Doubleday, R. 2007. “The Laboratory Revisited.” NanoEthics 1 (2): 167–176. doi: 10.1007/s11569-007-0017-4
   Google Scholar
• Doubleday, R., and A. Viseu. 2010. “Questioning Interdisciplinarity: What Roles for Laboratory Based Social Science.” In Nano Meets Macro: Social Perspectives on Nano Sciences and Technologies, edited by K. Kjolberg, and F. E. Wickson, 51–75. Singapore: Pan Stanford.
   Google Scholar
• Eigenbrode, S., M. O'Rourke, J. D. Wulfhorst, D. M. Althoff, C. S. Goldberg, K. Merrill, W. Morse, et al. 2007. “Employing Philosophical Dialogue in Collaborative Science.” BioScience 57: 55–64. doi: 10.1641/B570109
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2007. Work Programme 2007, Capacities, Part 5: Science in Society. Brussels: The Seventh Framework Programme.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, Robert, and Helen Crocker. 2013. “The Imitation Game as a Method for Exploring Knowledge(s) of Chronic Illness.” Methodological Innovations Online 8 (1): 34–52.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, Robert, and Marvin, Simon. 2006. “Researching the Sustainable City: Three Modes of Interdisciplinarity.” Environment and Planning (A) 38 (6): 1009–1028. doi:10.1068/a37317.
   Google Scholar
• Falk-Krzesinski, H. J., N. Contractor, S. M. Fiore, K. L. Hall, C. Kane, J. Keyton, J. T. Klein, B. Spring, D. Stokols, and W. Trochim. 2011. “Mapping a Research Agenda for the Science of Team Science.” Research Evaluation 20 (2): 145–158. doi: 10.3152/095820211X12941371876580
   Google Scholar
• Fehr, C. 2011. What is in It for Me? The Benefits of Diversity in Scientific Communities. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Fehr, C. and K. S. Plaisance. 2010. “Socially Relevant Philosophy of Science: An Introduction.” Synthese 177 (3): 301–316. doi: 10.1007/s11229-010-9855-7
   Google Scholar
• Felt, U. 2014. “Within, Across and Beyond: Reconsidering the Role of Social Sciences and Humanities in Europe.” Science as Culture 23 (3): 384–396. doi: 10.1080/09505431.2014.926146
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, E. 2005. “Lessons Learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications program (ELSI): Planning Societal Implications Research for the National Nanotechnology Program.” Technology in Society 27 (3): 321–328. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.04.006
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, E. 2006. “Embedded Nanotechnology Policy Research.” Ogmius 14: 3–4.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, E. 2007. “Ethnographic Invention: Probing the Capacity of Laboratory Decisions.” NanoEthics 1 (2): 155–165. doi: 10.1007/s11569-007-0016-5
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, E. 2011. “Public Science and Technology Scholars: Engaging Whom?” Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 607–620. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9331-x
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, E. 2014. “Invited Testimony.” The presidential commission for the study of bioethical issues, Sixteenth Meeting, Washington, DC, February 11.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, E., S. Biggs, S. Lindsay, and J. Zhao. 2010. “Research Thrives on Integration of Natural and Social Sciences.” Nature 463: 1018.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, E., and R. L. Mahajan. 2006. “Contradictory Intent? U.S. Federal Legislation on Integrating Societal Concerns into Nanotechnology Research and Development.” Science and Public Policy 33 (1): 5–16. doi: 10.3152/147154306781779181
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, E., and R. L. Mahajan. 2010. “Embedding the Humanities in Engineering: Art, Dialogue, and a Laboratory.” In Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise: Creating New Kinds of Collaboration, edited by Michael E. Gorman, 209–230. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, E., and C. Miller. 2009. “Contextualizing the Engineering Laboratory.” In Engineering in Context, edited by Steen Hyldgaard Christensen, Bernard Delahousse, and Martin Meganck, 369–382. Aarhus: Systime Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, E., R. L. Mahajan, and C. Mitcham. 2006. “Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance from Within.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26 (6): 485–496. doi: 10.1177/0270467606295402
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, E., and G. Maricle. 2014. “Higher-Level Responsiveness? Socio-Technical Integration within US and UK Nanotechnology Research Priority Setting.” Science and Public Policy. doi:10.1093/scipol/scu017
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, E., and A. Rip. 2013. “Responsible Innovation: Multi-Level Dynamics and Soft Interventions.” In Responsible Innovation, edited by R. Owen, M. Heintz, and J. Bessant, 165–183. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, E., and D. Schuurbiers. 2013. “Socio-technical Integration Research: Collaborative Inquiry at the Midstream of Research and Development.” In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening Up the Laboratory, edited by Neelke Doorn, Daan Schuurbiers, Ibo van de Poel and Michael E. Gorman, 97–110. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Fletcher, J. C., and M. Siegler. 1996. “What are the Goals of Ethics Consultation? A Consensus Statement.” The Journal of Clinical Ethics 7: 122–126.
   Google Scholar
• Flipse, S. M., M. C. van der Sanden, and P. Osseweijer. 2013. “Midstream Modulation in Biotechnology Industry: Redefining What is ‘Part of the Job’ of Researchers in Industry.” Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3): 1141–1164. doi: 10.1007/s11948-012-9411-6
   Google Scholar
• Flipse, S. M., M. C. van der Sanden, and P. Osseweijer. 2014. “Improving Industrial R&D Practices with Social and Ethical Aspects: Aligning Key Performance Indicators with Social and Ethical Aspects in Food Technology R&D.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 85: 185–197. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.009
   Google Scholar
• Fountain, J. E. 2004. Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, B. 1996. “Value-Sensitive Design.” Interactions 3 (6): 16–23. doi: 10.1145/242485.242493
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, B., P. H. Kahn Jr, and A. Borning. 2008. “Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems.” In The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics, edited by Kenneth Einar Himma and Herman T. Tavani, 69–101. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, B., P. H. Kahn Jr, A. Borning, and A. Huldtgren. 2013. “Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems.” In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening up the Laboratory, edited by Neelke Doorn, Daan Schuurbiers, Ibo van de Poel and Michael E. Gorman, 55–95. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Frodeman, R. 2010. “Experiments in Field Philosophy.” The Stone, New York Times, November 23.
   Google Scholar
• Frodeman, R., J. T. Klein, and C. Mitcham. 2010. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1993. “Science in the Post-Normal Age.” Futures 25 (7): 739–755. doi: 10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L
   Google Scholar
• Funtowicz, Silvio, and Jerome Ravetz. 2001. “Post-Normal Science. Science and Governance Under Conditions of Complexity.” In Interdisciplinarity in Technology Assessment: Implementation and its Chances and Limits, edited by M. Decker, 15–24. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Galison, P. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Gjefsen, M. D., and E. Fisher. 2014. “From Ethnography to Engagement: The Lab as a Site of Intervention.” Science as Culture 23 (3): 419–431. doi: 10.1080/09505431.2014.926147
   Google Scholar
• Goorden, L., M. van Oudheusden, J. Evers, and M. Deblonde. 2008. “Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow's Society: A Case for Reflective Action Research in Flanders, Belgium.” In The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume I: Presenting Futures, edited by E. Fisher, C. Selin, and J. Wetmore, 163–182. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Gorman, M. 2002. “Levels of Expertise and Trading Zones: A Framework for Multidisciplinary Collaboration.” Social Studies of Science 32 (6): 933–938. doi: 10.1177/030631202128967343
   Google Scholar
• Gorman, M. E. ed. 2010. Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise: Creating New Kinds of Collaboration. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gregory, R., G. Long, M. Colligan, J. G. Geiger, and M. Laser. 2012. “When Experts Disagree (and Better Science Won't Help Much): Using Structured Deliberations to Support Endangered Species Recovery Planning.” Journal of Environmental Management 105: 30–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.03.001
   Google Scholar
• Guston, D. H. 2014. “Understanding ‘Anticipatory Governance’.” Social Studies of Science 44 (2): 218–242. doi: 10.1177/0306312713508669
   Google Scholar
• Guston, D. H., E. Fisher, A. Grunwald, R. Owen, T. Swierstra, and S. van der Burg. 2014. “Responsible Innovation: Motivations for a New Journal.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 1–8. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.885175
   Google Scholar
• Guston, D. H., and D. Sarewitz. 2002. “Real-Time Technology Assessment.” Technology in Society 24 (1): 93–109. doi: 10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1
   Google Scholar
• Hackett, E. J. 2014. “The Vilnius Declaration.” Science, Technology & Human Values 39 (1): 3–5. doi: 10.1177/0162243913515373
   Google Scholar
• Hackett, E. J., and D. R. Rhoten. 2011. “Engaged, Embedded, Enjoined: Science and Technology Studies in the National Science Foundation.” Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 823–838. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9307-x
   Google Scholar
• Hess, David J. 2001. “Ethnography and the Development of Science and Technology Studies.” In Sage Handbook of Ethnography, edited by Paul Atkinson, Amanda Coffey, Sara Delamont, John Lofland, and Lyn Lofland, 234–245. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hollander, R. D., and N. H. Steneck. 1990. “Science- and Engineering-Related Ethics and Values Studies: Characteristics of an Emerging Field of Research.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 15: 84–104. doi: 10.1177/016224399001500109
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, A. 1995. Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. ed. 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Chicago, IL: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. 2011. “Constitutional Moments in Governing Science and Technology.” Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 621–638. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9302-2
   Google Scholar
• Juengst, E. T. 1991. “The Human Genome Project and Bioethics.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1: 71–74. doi: 10.1353/ken.0.0139
   Google Scholar
• Khushf, G. 2007. “Upstream Ethics in Nanomedicine: A Call for Research.” Nanomedicine 2 (4): 511–521. doi: 10.2217/17435889.2.4.511
   Google Scholar
• Kleinman, D. L. 1998. “Beyond the Science Wars: Contemplating the Democratization of Science.” Politics and the Life Sciences 17: 133–145.
   Google Scholar
• Kleinman, D. L., ed. 2000. Science, Technology, and Democracy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krabbenborg, L. 2013. “Dramatic Rehearsal on the Societal Embedding of the Lithium Chip.” In Ethics on the Laboratory Floor, edited by Simone van der Burg and Tsjalling Swierstra, 168–183. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Lempert, R. J., S. W. Popper, and S. C. Bankes. 2003. “Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative, Long-Term Policy Analysis.” RAND MR-1626. www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1626
   Google Scholar
• Lempert, R., D. Groves, S. Popper, and S. Bankes. 2006. “A General, Analytical Method for Generating Robust Strategies and Narrative Scenarios.” Management Science 52: 514–528. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1050.0472
   Google Scholar
• Levidow, Les, and Claudia Neubauer. 2014. “EU Research Agendas: Embedding What Future?” Science as Culture 23 (3): 397–412. doi: 10.1080/09505431.2014.926149
   Google Scholar
• Looney, C., S. Donovan, M. O'Rourke, S. Crowley, S. D. Eigenbrode, L. Rotschy, N. Bosque-Pérez, and J. D. Wulfhorst. 2013. “Seeing through the Eyes of Collaborators: Using Toolbox Workshops to Enhance Cross-Disciplinary Communication.” In Enhancing Communication and Collaboration in Interdisciplinary Research, edited by M. O'Rourke, S. Crowley, S. D. Eigenbrode, and J. D. Wulfhorst, 220–243. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P., M. B. Kearnes, and B. Wynne. 2005. “Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?” Science Communication 27 (2): 268–291. doi: 10.1177/1075547005281531
   Google Scholar
• McCain, L. 2002. “Informing Technology Policy Decisions: the US Human Genome Project's Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Programs as a Critical Case.” Technology in Society 24 (1): 111–132. doi: 10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00048-3
   Google Scholar
• McCormick, Jennifer Blair, Angie M. Boyce, Jennifer M. Ladd, and Mildred K. Cho. 2012. “Barriers to Considering Ethical and Societal Implications of Research: Perceptions of Life Scientists.” Ajob Primary Research 3 (3): 40–50. doi: 10.1080/21507716.2012.680651
   Google Scholar
• Mejlgaard, N., C. Bloch, L. Degn, T. Ravn, and M. W. Nielsen. 2012. Monitoring Policy and Research Activities on Science in Society in Europe (MASIS): Final Synthesis Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/monitoring-policy-research-activities-on-sis_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mitcham, C. 1994. Thinking through Technology: The Path Between Engineering and Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Morse, W. C., M. Nielsen-Pincus, J. E. and Force, J. D. Wulfhorst. 2007. “Bridges and Barriers to Developing and Conducting Interdisciplinary Graduate-Student Team Research.” Ecology and Society 12: 8. Accessed January 12, 2008. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art8/.
   Google Scholar
• National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research and Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy. 2004. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research and Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy. 2005. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nordmann, A., and A. Schwarz. 2010. “Lure of the ‘Yes’: The Seductive Power of Technoscience.” In Governing Future Technologies: Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime, edited by M. Kaiser, M. Kurath, S. Maasen, and C. Rehmann-Sutter, 255–278. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Nydal, R., S. Efstathiou, and A. Laegreid. 2012. “Crossover Research: Exploring a Collaborative Mode of Integration.” In Little by Little. Expansions of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies, edited by Harro van Lente, Christopher Coenen, Torsten Fleischer, Kornelia Konrad, Lotte Krabbenborg, Colin Milburn, François Thoreau, and Torben B. Zülsdorf, 181–194.Heidelberg: IOS Press/AKA.
   Google Scholar
• Ommer, R., B. Wynne, R. Downey, E. Fisher, E. Marden, and P. Kosseim. 2011. “Pathways to Integration.” Genome British Columbia GSEAC Subcommittee on Pathways to Integration, Vancouver.
   Google Scholar
• O'Rourke, M., and S. J. Crowley. 2013. “Philosophical Intervention and Cross-Disciplinary Science: The Story of the Toolbox Project.” Synthese 190: 1937–1954. doi: 10.1007/s11229-012-0175-y
   Google Scholar
• O'Rourke, M., S. Crowley, S. D. Eigenbrode, and J. D. Wulfhorst, eds. 2013. Enhancing Communication and Collaboration in Interdisciplinary Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, R. 2014. “The UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council's Commitment to a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 113–117. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.882065
   Google Scholar
• Owen, R., P. Macnaghten, and J. Stilgoe. 2012. “Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society.” Science and Public Policy 39 (6): 751–760. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs093
   Google Scholar
• Owen, R., J. Stilgoe, P. Macnaghten, M. Gorman, E. Fisher, and D. Guston. 2013. “A Framework for Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation, edited by R. Owen, J. Bessant and M. Heintz, 27–50. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Paletz, S., L. Smith-Doerr, and I. Vardi. 2010. “National Science Foundation Workshop Report: Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Innovation Science and Engineering Fields.” http://www.csid.unt.edu/nsf/nsf-workshop-report.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Patra, D. 2011. “Responsible Development of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology: Contextualizing Socio-Technical Integration into the Nanofabrication Laboratories in the USA.” NanoEthics 5 (2): 143–157. doi: 10.1007/s11569-011-0118-y
   Google Scholar
• Pielke, R. A. 2007. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Plaisance, K. S., and C. Fehr, eds. 2010. “Making Philosophy of Science more Socially Relevant.” Synthese 177 (3): 301–492.
   Google Scholar
• Plaisance, K. S., and E. B. Kennedy. 2014. “A Pluralistic Approach to Interactional Expertise.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 47: 60–68. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2014.07.001
   Google Scholar
• Pohl, C., and G. Hirsch Hadorn. 2007. Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary Research. Munich: Oekom Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Rabinow, P. 2009. “Prosperity, Amelioration, Flourishing: From a Logic of Practical Judgment to Reconstruction.” Law & Literature 21 (3): 301–320. doi: 10.1525/lal.2009.21.3.301
   Google Scholar
• Rabinow, P., and G. Bennett. 2009a. “Human Practices: Interfacing Three Modes of Collaboration.” In The Ethics of Protocells: Moral and Social Implications of Creating Life in the Laboratory, edited by M. Bedau and E. C. Parke, 263–290. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rabinow, P., and G. Bennett. 2009b. “Synthetic Biology: Ethical Ramifications 2009.” Systems and Synthetic Biology 3 (1–4): 99–108. doi: 10.1007/s11693-009-9042-7
   Google Scholar
• Rabinow, P., and G. Bennett. 2012. Designing Human Practices: An Experiment with Synthetic Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rabinow, P., G. Bennett, and A. Stavrianakis. 2009. “Reply to the Respondents.” Law & Literature 2 (3): 471–479. doi: 10.1525/lal.2009.21.3.471
   Google Scholar
• Rabinow, P., and A. Stavrianakis. 2013. Demands of the Day: On the Logic of Anthropological Inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ribes, D., and K. Baker. 2007. “Modes of Social Science Engagement in Community Infrastructure Design Communities and Technologies 2007.” Proceedings of the Third Communities and Technologies Conference, Michigan State University, Michigan.
   Google Scholar
• Rip, A. 2002. “Co-evolution of Science, Technology and Society.” Expert Review for Bundesministerium Bildung und Forchung Förderinitiative Politik, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft, as man- aged by Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• Rip, A. 2009. “Futures of ELSA.” EMBO reports 10 (7): 666–670. doi: 10.1038/embor.2009.149
   Google Scholar
• Rip, A., and H. van Lente. 2013. “Bridging the Gap Between Innovation and ELSA: The TA Program in the Dutch Nano-R&D Program NanoNed.” NanoEthics 7 (1): 7–16. doi: 10.1007/s11569-013-0171-9
   Google Scholar
• Roco, M. C., W. S. Bainbridge, B. Tonn, and G. Whitesides, eds. 2013. Converging Knowledge, Technology, and Society: Beyond Convergence of Nano-Bio-Info-Cognitive Technologies. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rodríguez, H., E. Fisher, and D. Schuurbiers. 2013. “Integrating Science and Society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in Project-Level Solicitations.” Research Policy 42 (5): 1126–1137. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.02.006
   Google Scholar
• Salazar, M. R., T. K. Lant, S. M. Fiore, and E. Salas. 2012. “Facilitating Innovation in Diverse Science Teams Through Integrative Capacity.” Small Group Research 43 (5): 527–558. doi: 10.1177/1046496412453622
   Google Scholar
• Salazar, M. R., T. K. Lant, and A. Kane. 2011. “To Join or Not to Join: An Investigation of Individual Facilitators and Inhibitors of Medical Faculty Participation in Interdisciplinary Research Teams.” CTS Journal 4 (4): 274–278.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Vol. 5126. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Schot, J., and A. Rip. 1997. “The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment.” Technological Forecasting & Social Change 54 (2&3): 251–268. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1
   Google Scholar
• Schuurbiers, D. 2011. “What Happens in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory.” Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 769–788. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9317-8
   Google Scholar
• Schuurbiers, D., and E. Fisher. 2009. “Lab-Scale Intervention.” EMBO Reports 10 (5): 424–427. doi: 10.1038/embor.2009.80
   Google Scholar
• Sclove, Richard E. 1995. Democracy and Technology. New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Selinger, E., H. Dreyfus, and H. Collins. 2007. “Interactional Expertise and Embodiment.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38 (4): 722–740. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2007.09.008
   Google Scholar
• Selinger, E., and J. Mix. 2004. “On Interactional Expertise: Pragmatic and Ontological Considerations.” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 3 (2): 145–163. doi: 10.1023/B:PHEN.0000040825.60925.a4
   Google Scholar
• Shilton, K. 2013. “Values Levers: Building Ethics into Design.” Science, Technology & Human Values 38 (3): 374–397.
   Google Scholar
• Sievanen, L., L. M. Campbell, and H. M. Leslie. 2011. “Challenges to Interdisciplinary Research in Ecosystem-Based Management.” Conservation Biology 26 (2): 315–323. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01808.x
   Google Scholar
• Stegmaier, P. 2009. “The Rock ‘N'roll of Knowledge Co-Production.” EMBO Reports 10 (2): 114–119. doi: 10.1038/embor.2008.253
   Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, J., R. Owen, and P. Macnaghten. 2013. “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
   Google Scholar
• Stirling, A. 2008. “‘Opening Up’ and ‘Closing Down’ Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology.” Science, Technology & Human Values 33 (2): 262–294. doi: 10.1177/0162243907311265
   Google Scholar
• Stokols D., J. Fuqua, J. Gress, R. Harvey, K. Phillips, L. Baesconde-Garbanati, J. Unger, et al. 2003. “Evaluating Transdisciplinary Science.” Nicotine & Tobacco Research 5: S21–S39. doi: 10.1080/14622200310001625555
   Google Scholar
• Stokols, D., K. L. Hall, B. K. Taylor, and R. P. Moser. 2008. “The Science of Team Science: Overview of the Field and Introduction to the Supplement.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35 (2): S77–S89. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.002
   Google Scholar
• Sweet, D. S., Thomas P. Seager, S. Tylock, J. Bullock, Igor Linkov, D. J. Colombo, and Uwe Unrath. 2014. “Sustainability Awareness and Expertise: Structuring the Cognitive Processes for Solving Wicked Problems and Achieving an Adaptive-State.” In Sustainable Cities and Military Installations, edited by Igor Linkov, 79–129. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Taebi, Behnam, A. Correljé, E. Cuppen, M. Dignum, and U. Pesch. 2014. “Responsible Innovation as an Endorsement of Public Values: The Need for Interdisciplinary Research.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 118–124. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.882072
   Google Scholar
• Thoreau, F. 2011. “On Reflections and Reflexivity: Unpacking Research Dispositifs.” In Quantum Engagements: Social Reflections of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies, edited by Torben B. Zülsdorf, Christopher Coenen, Ulrich Fiedeler, Arianna Ferrari, Colin Milburn, and Matthias Wienroth, 219–235. Heidelberg: IOS Press/AKA.
   Google Scholar
• Tuma, Julio R. 2013. “Nanoethics in a Nanolab: Ethics via Participation.” Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3): 983–1005. doi: 10.1007/s11948-013-9449-0
   Google Scholar
• US Congress. 2003. “21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003. 2003.” Public Law no 108–153, 117 STAT. 1923.
   Google Scholar
• Valve, H., and McNally, R. 2013. “Articulating Scientific Practice with PROTEE: STS, Loyalties, and the Limits of Reflexivity.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 38 (4): 470–491. doi: 10.1177/0162243912451340
   Google Scholar
• Van de Poel, I., and N. Doorn. 2013. “Ethical Parallel Research: A Network Approach for Moral Evaluation (NAME).” In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening up the Laboratory, edited by Neelke Doorn, Daan Schuurbiers, Ibo van de Poel, and Michael E. Gorman, 111–136. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Van de Poel, I. and P-P. Verbeek. 2006. “Ethics and Engineering Design.” (Special Issue) Science, Technology & Human Values 31 (3): 223–236. doi: 10.1177/0162243905285838
   Google Scholar
• Van der Burg, S., and T. Swierstra, eds. 2013. Ethics on the Laboratory Floor. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Van Eijndhoven, J. 1997. “Technology Assessment: Product or Process?” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54 (2): 269–286. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00210-7
   Google Scholar
• Van Eijndhoven, J. 2000. “The Netherlands: Technology Assessment from Academically Oriented Analyses to Support of Public Debate.” In Parliaments and Technology: The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe, edited by N. Vig and H. Paschen, 147–172. Albany, NY: The State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Gorp, A. C. 2005. Ethical Issues in Engineering Design; Safety and Sustainability. Vol. 2. Delft: 3TU Ethics.
   Google Scholar
• Van Oudheusden, M. 2014. “Where are the Politics in Responsible Innovation? European Governance, Technology Assessments, and Beyond.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 67–86. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.882097
   Google Scholar
• Viseu, A., and H. Maguire. 2012. “Integrating and Enacting ‘Social and Ethical Issues’ in Nanotechnology Practices.” NanoEthics 6 (3): 195–209. doi: 10.1007/s11569-012-0162-2
   Google Scholar
• Von Schomberg, R. 2013. “A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by Richard Owen, John Bessant, and Maggy Heintz, 51–74. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Voss, J.-P., D. Bauknecht, and R. Kemp. 2006. Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Wickson, F., A. L. Carew, and Russell, A. W. 2006. “Transdisciplinary Research: Characteristics, Quandaries and Quality.” Futures 38 (9): 1046–1059. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2006.02.011
   Google Scholar
• Wiek, Arnim, Barry Ness, Petra Schweizer-Ries, and Francesca Farioli. 2014. “Collaboration for Transformation.” Sustainability Science 9 (1): 113–114. doi: 10.1007/s11625-013-0231-7
   Google Scholar
• Williams, Robin, and David Edge. 1996. “The Social Shaping of Technology.” Research Policy 25 (6): 865–899. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(96)00885-2
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. 2011. “Lab Work goes Social, and Vice Versa: Strategising Public Engagement Processes.” Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 791–800. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9316-9
   Google Scholar
• Zuiderent-Jerak, T. 2007. “Preventing Implementation: Exploring Interventions with Standardization in Healthcare.” Science as Culture 16 (3): 311–329. doi: 10.1080/09505430701568719
   Google Scholar