IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v48y2019i5p1138-1149.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Governing with ambivalence: The tentative origins of socio-technical integration

Author

Listed:
  • Fisher, Erik

Abstract

Requirements to integrate societal considerations into research and development practices began appearing throughout the democratic industrialized world in the early 2000s and eventually became a central feature of responsible innovation. Examining one of the earliest and most prominent policy examples, this paper investigates the conceptual basis of the U.S. nanotechnology program’s mandate for socio-technical integration. It argues that policy makers adopted this innovative response to addressing the societal issues of an emerging technology due to their heightened awareness of potential interactions among public attitudes, research directions, and technological trajectories. Integration thus emerged as a governance mechanism for mediating the interaction between these dynamic sources of uncertainty. The mandate emerged in a self-consciously experimental and anticipatory manner and thus provides a practical instance of tentative governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Fisher, Erik, 2019. "Governing with ambivalence: The tentative origins of socio-technical integration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1138-1149.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:5:p:1138-1149
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733319300186
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen A. Merrill, 1984. "The Politics Of Micropolicy: Innovation And Industrial Policy In The United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 3(3‐4), pages 445-452, May.
    2. Jallinoja, P. & Hakonen, A. & Aro, A. R. & Niemelä, P. & Hietala, M. & Lönnqvist, J. & Peltonen, L. & Aula, P., 1998. "Attitudes towards genetic testing: analysis of contradictions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1367-1374, March.
    3. Hessels, Laurens K. & van Lente, Harro, 2008. "Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 740-760, May.
    4. Richard Owen & Nicola Goldberg, 2010. "Responsible Innovation: A Pilot Study with the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(11), pages 1699-1707, November.
    5. Laurens K. Hessels & Harro van Lente, 2008. "Re-thinking knowledge production: a literature review and a research agenda," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-03, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2008.
    6. Erik Fisher & Roop L Mahajan, 2006. "Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 5-16, February.
    7. Balconi, Margherita & Brusoni, Stefano & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2010. "In defence of the linear model: An essay," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, February.
    8. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    9. Rodríguez, Hannot & Fisher, Erik & Schuurbiers, Daan, 2013. "Integrating science and society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in project-level solicitations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1126-1137.
    10. Juan D. Rogers & Jan Youtie & Luciano Kay, 2012. "Program-level assessment of research centers: Contribution of Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers to US Nanotechnology National Initiative goals," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(5), pages 368-380, November.
    11. Kuhlmann, Stefan & Stegmaier, Peter & Konrad, Kornelia, 2019. "The tentative governance of emerging science and technology—A conceptual introduction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1091-1097.
    12. Miklós Lukovics & Erik Fisher, 2017. "Socio-Technical Integration Research in an Eastern European Setting: Distinct Features, Challenges and Opportunities," Society and Economy, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, vol. 39(4), pages 501-528, December.
    13. Richard Owen & Phil Macnaghten & Jack Stilgoe, 2012. "Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 751-760, December.
    14. Erik Fisher & Catherine P. Slade & Derrick Anderson & Barry Bozeman, 2010. "The public value of nanotechnology?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 29-39, October.
    15. Flipse, Steven M. & van der Sanden, Maarten C.A. & Osseweijer, Patricia, 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, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 185-197.
    16. Pandza, Krsto & Ellwood, Paul, 2013. "Strategic and ethical foundations for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1112-1125.
    17. Stilgoe, Jack & Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil, 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1568-1580.
    18. Fisher, Erik, 2005. "Lessons learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications program (ELSI): Planning societal implications research for the National Nanotechnology Program," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 321-328.
    19. Derrick Anderson & Catherine P. Slade, 2013. "Agenda Setting in Emergent R&D Policy Subsystems: Examining Discourse Effects of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 30(5), pages 447-463, September.
    20. Smith, Adrian & Voß, Jan-Peter & Grin, John, 2010. "Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 435-448, May.
    21. Genus, Audley & Stirling, Andy, 2018. "Collingridge and the dilemma of control: Towards responsible and accountable innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 61-69.
    22. Andrew Schrank & Josh Whitford, 2009. "Industrial Policy in the United States: A Neo-Polanyian Interpretation," Politics & Society, , vol. 37(4), pages 521-553, December.
    23. Williams, Robin & Edge, David, 1996. "The social shaping of technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 865-899, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yuwan Malakar & Justine Lacey & Paul M Bertsch, 2022. "Towards responsible science and technology: How nanotechnology research and development is shaping risk governance practices in Australia," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Seokbeom Kwon & Jan Youtie & Alan Porter & Nils Newman, 2024. "How does regulatory uncertainty shape the innovation process? Evidence from the case of nanomedicine," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 262-302, February.
    3. Jakku, E. & Fleming, A. & Espig, M. & Fielke, S. & Finlay-Smits, S.C. & Turner, J.A., 2023. "Disruption disrupted? Reflecting on the relationship between responsible innovation and digital agriculture research and development at multiple levels in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    4. Kaplan, Leah R. & Farooque, Mahmud & Sarewitz, Daniel & Tomblin, David, 2021. "Designing Participatory Technology Assessments: A Reflexive Method for Advancing the Public Role in Science Policy Decision-making," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    5. Kuhlmann, Stefan & Stegmaier, Peter & Konrad, Kornelia, 2019. "The tentative governance of emerging science and technology—A conceptual introduction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1091-1097.
    6. Michael Poznic & Erik Fisher, 2021. "The Integrative Expert: Moral, Epistemic, and Poietic Virtues in Transformation Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-11, September.
    7. Borrás, Susana & Edler, Jakob, 2020. "The roles of the state in the governance of socio-technical systems’ transformation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    8. Vas, Zsófia & Nádas, Nikoletta, 2021. "A felelősségteljes innováció tíz éve az Európai Unió szakpolitikájában [Ten years of fully responsible innovation in the specialist policy of the European Union]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1210-1230.
    9. Jiqing Liu & Gui Zhang & Xiaojing Lv & Jiayu Li, 2022. "Discovering the Landscape and Evolution of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): Science Mapping Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-32, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rodríguez, Hannot & Fisher, Erik & Schuurbiers, Daan, 2013. "Integrating science and society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in project-level solicitations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1126-1137.
    2. Miklós Lukovics & Beáta Udvari & Nikoletta Nádas & Erik Fisher, 2019. "Raising Awareness of Researchers-in-the-Making Toward Responsible Research and Innovation," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(4), pages 1558-1577, December.
    3. Carbajo, Ruth & Cabeza, Luisa F., 2019. "Sustainability and social justice dimension indicators for applied renewable energy research: A responsible approach proposal," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 252(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Lukovics, Miklós & Flipse, Steven M. & Udvari, Beáta & Fisher, Erik, 2017. "Responsible research and innovation in contrasting innovation environments: Socio-Technical Integration Research in Hungary and the Netherlands," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 172-182.
    5. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    6. Beniamino Callegari & Olga Mikhailova, 2021. "RRI and Corporate Stakeholder Engagement: The Aquadvantage Salmon Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    7. Wiarda, Martijn & van de Kaa, Geerten & Yaghmaei, Emad & Doorn, Neelke, 2021. "A comprehensive appraisal of responsible research and innovation: From roots to leaves," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    8. Dirk Meissner & Wolfgang Polt & Nicholas S. Vonortas, 2017. "Towards a broad understanding of innovation and its importance for innovation policy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(5), pages 1184-1211, October.
    9. Julia Olmos‐Peñuela & Paul Benneworth & Elena Castro‐Martínez, 2015. "Exploring the factors related with scientists’ willingness to incorporating external knowledge," CHEPS Working Papers 201504, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    10. Lehoux, P. & Miller, F.A. & Williams-Jones, B., 2020. "Anticipatory governance and moral imagination: Methodological insights from a scenario-based public deliberation study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    11. Genus, Audley & Iskandarova, Marfuga, 2018. "Responsible innovation: its institutionalisation and a critique," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-9.
    12. Pfotenhauer, Sebastian M. & Wentland, Alexander & Ruge, Luise, 2023. "Understanding regional innovation cultures: Narratives, directionality, and conservative innovation in Bavaria," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).
    13. Glover, Dominic & Poole, Nigel, 2019. "Principles of innovation to build nutrition-sensitive food systems in South Asia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 63-73.
    14. Sara H. Wilford, 2018. "First Line Steps in Requirements Identification for Guidelines Development in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 539-556, October.
    15. Yoguel, Gabriel & Brixner, Cristián & Lerena, Octavio & Minervini, Mariana, 2021. "The relationship between universities and business: identification of thematic communities," Revista CEPAL, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), December.
    16. Michael Poznic & Erik Fisher, 2021. "The Integrative Expert: Moral, Epistemic, and Poietic Virtues in Transformation Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-11, September.
    17. Rakas, Marija & Hain, Daniel S., 2019. "The state of innovation system research: What happens beneath the surface?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    18. Tatiana Iakovleva & Elin Oftedal & John Bessant, 2021. "Changing Role of Users—Innovating Responsibly in Digital Health," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    19. Yuwan Malakar & Justine Lacey & Paul M Bertsch, 2022. "Towards responsible science and technology: How nanotechnology research and development is shaping risk governance practices in Australia," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    20. Undheim, Trond Arne, 2024. "In search of better methods for the longitudinal assessment of tech-derived X-risks: How five leading scenario planning efforts can help," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:5:p:1138-1149. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.