Communities of Integration Workshop

Tempe Mission Palms Hotel
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
May 21-22, 2013

Compiled by Erik Fisher & Eric B. Kennedy, May 2013

As we explore a variety of examples of communities practicing socio-technical integration, we are interested in compiling a bibliography of exemplar work. Please contact us if you have suggestions that should be added.

The most up-to-date list can be downloaded here [PDF].


  • Fisher E (2011) Public science and technology scholars: Engaging whom? Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 607-620.
  • McDonald D, Bammer G and Deane P (2009) Research integration using dialogue methods. Sydney: The Australian National University E Press.
  • Paletz S, Smith-Doerr L and Vardi I (2011) National Science Foundation workshop report: Interdisciplinary collaboration in innovative science and engineering field. Report, Boston University, USA, March. 
  • Rodríguez H, Fisher E and Schuurbiers D (2013) Integrating science and society in European framework programmes: Trends in project-level solicitations. Research Policy 42(5): 1126–1137.
  • Stegmaier P (2009) The rock 'n' roll of knowledge co-production. European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) Reports 10: 114-119.
  • Thompson Klein, J (ed) (2001) Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society: ‪An effective way for managing complexity. Berlin: Birkhäuser.

Ends / Policies / Critiques

  • Baird D (2003) Testimony to the senate committee on commerce, science, and transportation. United States Senate, May 1. 
  • Bennett I and Sarewitz D (2006) Too little, too late?: Research policies on the societal implications of nanotechnology in the United States. Science as Culture 15(4): 309-325.
  • Brush S G (1974) Should the history of science be rated x? The way scientists behave (according to historians) might not be a good model for students. Science 183(4130): 1164-1172.
  • Collins HM and Evans R (2002) The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science 32(2): 235-296.
  • Doubleday R and Viseu A (2010) Questioning interdisciplinarity: What roles for laboratory-based social science? In: Kjolberg K L, Wickson F (eds) Nano Meets Macro: Social Perspectives on Nanoscale Sciences and Technologies. Singapore: Pan Stanford Publishing.
  • Fisher E (2005) Lessons learned from the Ethical, Legal & Social Implications Program (ELSI): Planning a societal implications research program for the National Nanotechnology Program. Technology in Society 27: 321-328. 
  • Fisher E and Lightner M (2009) Entering the social experiment: A case for the informed consent of graduate engineering students, Social Epistemology 23(3): 283-300. 
  • Fisher E and Mahajan R (2006) Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development. Science and Public Policy 33(1): 5-16.
  • Fisher E and Miller C (2009) Contextualizing the engineering laboratory. In Christensen S H, Meganck M and Delahousse B (eds.), Engineering in Context, Aarhus: Academica, pp. 369-382.
  • Funtowicz S and Ravetz J (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25: 739-755.
  • Jasanoff S (2011) Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 621–638.
  • Macnaghten P, Kearnes M B and Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication 27: 268–287 
  • Rabinow P and Bennett G (2009) Synthetic biology: Ethical ramifications 2009. Systems and Synthetic Biology 3(1-4): 99-108.
  • Von Schomberg R (ed) (2011) Towards responsible research and innovation in the information and communication technologies and security technologies fields. Report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, August.
  • Van Oudheusden M (2011) Questioning 'participation': A critical appraisal of its conceptualization in a Flemish participatory technology assessment." Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 673-690.
  • Wynne B (2011) Lab work goes social, and vice versa: Strategising public engagement processes. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 791-800.

Constructive Technology Assessment

  • Rip A and Robinson D (forthcoming) Constructive technology assessment and the methodology of insertion. In: Doorn N, van de Poel I, Schuurbiers D and Gorman M (eds) Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory. New York: Springer.
  • Rip A and te Kulve H (2008) Constructive technology assessment and sociotechnical scenarios. In: Fisher E, Selin C and Wetmore J M (eds) The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume I: Presenting Futures. New York: Springer, pp. 49-70.
  • Rip A and van Lente H (2013) Bridging the gap between innovation and ELSA: The TA program in the Dutch nano-r&d program NanoNed. Nanoethics 7: 7–16.
  • Schot J and Rip A (1997) The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54: 251-268.

Interactional Expertise / SEESHOP

  • Collins H and Evans R (2007) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Collins H, Evans R and Gorman M (200). Trading zones and interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38(4): 657-666.
  • Collins H and Sanders G (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.
  • Selinger E, Dreyfus H and Collins H (2007) Interactional expertise and embodiment. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38(4): 722-740.
  • Selinger E and Mix J (2004) On interactional expertise: Pragmatic and ontological considerations. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 3(2): 145-163.

Midstream Modulation / Socio-Technical Integration Research (STIR) 

  • Fisher E (2007) Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics 1(2): 155-165. 
  • Fisher E, Biggs S, Lindsay S and Zhao J (2010) Research thrives on integration of natural and social sciences: Correspondence. Nature 463(7248): 1018-1018. 
  • Fisher E and Mahajan R L (2010) Embedding the humanities in engineering: Art, dialogue, and a laboratory. In: Gorman M E (ed) Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise: Creating New Kinds of Collaboration. Cambridge: MIT Press. 
  • Fisher E and Mahajan R L (2006) Midstream modulation of nanotechnology research in an academic laboratory. Proceedings of International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, pp. 189-195. Chicago, November 5-10. 
  • Fisher E, Mahajan R L, and Mitcham C (2006) Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26(6): 485-496.
  • Filpse S M, van der Saden M C and Osseweijer P (2012) Midstream modulation in biotechnology industry: Redefining what is 'part of the job' of researchers in industry. Science and Engineering Ethics: 1-24.
  • Schuurbiers D (2011) What happens in the lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 769-788. 
  • Schuurbiers D and Fisher E (2009) Lab-scale intervention. European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) Reports 10(5): 424–427.

Toolbox Project

  • Crowley S, Eigenbrode S D, O'Rourke M and Wulfhorst J D (2010) Localization in cross-disciplinary research: A philosophical approach. MultiLingual 114. <>
  • Eigenbrode S D, O’Rourke M, Wulfhorst J D, Althoff D M, Goldberg C S, Merrill K, Morse W, Nielsen-Pincus M, Stephens J, Winowiecki L and Bosque-Pérez N A (2007) Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. BioScience 57(1): 55-64. 
  • Looney C, Donovan S, O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode SD, Rotschy L, Bosque-Pérez N and Wulfhorst J D (Forthcoming) Seeing through the eyes of collaborators: A manual for using the toolbox workshops to enhance cross-disciplinary communication and collaboration. In: O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode S D and Wulfhorst J D (eds) Enhancing Communication and Collaboration in Interdisciplinary Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • O’Rourke M, Crowley S (2012) Philosophical intervention and cross-disciplinary science: The story of the Toolbox Project. Synthese, 1-18.

Trading Zones

  • Galison P (1997) Image and Logic: a Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Gorman M E (2002) Levels of expertise and trading zones: A framework for multidisciplinary collaboration. Social Studies of Science 32(5/6): 933-938.
  • Gorman M E (ed) (2010) Trading zones and interactional expertise: Creating new kinds of collaboration. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Gorman M E, Groves J F and Shrager J (2004) Societal dimensions of nanotechnology as a trading zone: Results from a pilot project. In: Baird D, Nordmann A and Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 63-73.

Socially Relevant Philosophy of Science

  • Fehr C, and Plaisance KS (2010) Socially relevant philosophy of science: an introduction. Synthese 177(3): 301-316.
  • Grasswick H (2010) Scientific and lay communities: earning epistemic trust through knowledge sharing. Synthese 177(3): 387-409.
  • Tuana N (2010) Leading with ethics, aiming for policy: new opportunities for philosophy of science.

Various and other approaches

  • Barben D, Fisher E, Selin C, and Guston D H (2008) Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In: Hackett E J, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M E and Wajcman J (eds) New Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 979-1000.
  • Bijker W E and d’Andrea L (2009) Handbook On the Socialisation of Scientific and Technological Research. Rome: Social Sciences and European Research Capacities (SS-ERC) Project.
  • Bjornstad D J and Wolfe A K (2011) Adding to the mix: Integrating ELSI into a National Nanoscale Science and Technology Center. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 743–760.
  • Calvert J and Martin P (2009) The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBo Reports 10(3): 201-204.
  • de Melo-Martín I (2009) Creating reflective spaces: Interactions between philosophers and biomedical scientists. Perspectives on Biological Medicine 52(1): 39–47.
  • Fitzpatrick E, Askin R and Goldberg J (2001) Using student conative behaviors and technical skills to form effective project teams. In: Frontiers in Education Conference, 2001, 31st Annual, IEEE 3: pp. S2G-8.
  • Flipse S M, van der Sanden M C A and Osseweijer P (2013) Setting up spaces for collaboration in industry between researchers from the natural and social sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics: 1-16.
  • Frodeman R (2003) Geo-Logic: Breaking Ground Between Philosophy and the Earth Sciences. New York: SUNY Press.
  • Goorden L, Van Oudheusden M, Evers J and Deblonde M (2008) Nanotechnologies for tomorrow’s society: a case for reflective action research in Flanders, Belgium. In: Fisher E, Selin C and Wetmore J M (eds) The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume I: Presenting Futures. New York: Springer, pp. 49-70.
  • Hackett E J and Rhoten D R (2011) Engaged, embedded, enjoined: Science and technology studies in the National Science Foundation. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4), 823–838.
  • Militello L G, Getner F C, Swindler S D, Beisner G I (2006) Conation: It’s historical roots and implications for future research. In: Collaborative Technologies and Systems, CTS 2006, IEEE, pp. 240-247. 
  • Morris N and Hebden J C (2008) Evolving collaborations: A self-referential case-study of a social/ natural sciences collaborative project. Science Studies 21(2): 27–46.
  • Nydal R, Efstathiou S and Lægreid A (2012) Crossover Research: Exploring a Collaborative Mode of Integration. In: van Lente H, Coenen C, Fleischer T, Konrad K, Krabbenborg L, Milburn C, Thoreau F and Zülsdforf T (eds) Little by Little. Expansions of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies, Amsterdam: IOS Press.
  • Penders B, Vos R and Horstman K (2009) Sensitization: Reciprocity and reflection in scientific practice. EMBo Reports 10(3): 205-208.
  • Rabinow P and Bennett G (2012) Designing Human Practices: An Experiment with Synthetic Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Sadowski J, Seager T P, Selinger E, Spierre S and Whyte K P (2012) An experiential, game-theoretic pedagogy for sustainability ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics: 1-17.
  • Seager T P, Selinger E and Wiek A (2012) Sustainable engineering science for resolving wicked problems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25(4): 467-484.
  • Van der Burg S (2009) Imagining the future of photoacoustic mammography. Science and Engineering Ethics 15: 97-111.
  • Van der Burg S (2010) Ethical imagination: broadening laboratory deliberations. In: Roeser S (ed) Emotions About Risky Technologies, Series ‘International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology’. Amsterdam: Springer Netherlands, pp. 139-155.
  • Viseu A and Maguire H (2012) Integrating and enacting ‘social and ethical issues’ in nanotechnology practices. NanoEthics 6(3): 195-209. 
  • Voss J P, Bauknecht D and Kemp R (2006) Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.