1
|
Lawrence C, Jasanoff S, Evans SW, Raffel K, Mahadevan L. Ethics Inside the Black Box: Integrating Science and Technology Studies into Engineering and Public Policy Curricula. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2023; 29:23. [PMID: 37347323 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-023-00440-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2021] [Accepted: 04/21/2023] [Indexed: 06/23/2023]
Abstract
There is growing need for hybrid curricula that integrate constructivist methods from Science and Technology Studies (STS) into both engineering and policy courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels. However, institutional and disciplinary barriers have made implementing such curricula difficult at many institutions. While several programs have recently been launched that mix technical training with consideration of "societal" or "ethical issues," these programs often lack a constructivist element, leaving newly-minted practitioners entering practical fields ill-equipped to unpack the politics of knowledge and technology or engage with skeptical publics. This paper presents a novel format for designing interdisciplinary coursework that combines conceptual content from STS with training in engineering and policy. Courses following this format would ideally be team taught by instructors with advanced training in diverse fields, and hence co-learning between instructors and disciplines is a key element of the format. Several instruments for facilitating both student and instructor collaborative learning are introduced. The format is also designed for versatility: in addition to being adaptable to both technical and policy training environments, topics are modularized around a conceptual core so that issues ranging from biotech to nuclear security can be incorporated to fit programmatic needs and resources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher Lawrence
- Science, Technology and International Affairs Program, Walsh School of Foreign Service, Geogetown University, Washington, USA.
| | - Sheila Jasanoff
- Program on Science, Technology and Society, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Sam Weiss Evans
- Program on Science, Technology and Society, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
- Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Keith Raffel
- Mather House, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - L Mahadevan
- Department of Physics, Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hesjedal MB, Åm H, Sørensen KH, Strand R. Transforming Scientists' Understanding of Science-Society Relations. Stimulating Double-Loop Learning when Teaching RRI. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2020; 26:1633-1653. [PMID: 32180098 PMCID: PMC7286945 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-020-00208-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2019] [Accepted: 03/09/2020] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
The problem of developing research and innovation in accordance with society's general needs and values has received increasing attention in research policy. In the last 7 years, the concept of "Responsible Research and Innovation" (RRI) has gained prominence in this regard, along with the resulting question of how best to integrate awareness about science-society relations into daily practices in research and higher education. In this context, post-graduate training has been seen as a promising entrance point, but tool-kit approaches more frequently have been used. In this paper, we present and analyze an experiment-in the format of a Ph.D. course for early-career researchers-deploying an alternative approach. Drawing on Argyris and Schön's (1974) framing of reflective practice, and their distinctions between espoused theories and theories-in-use, the analyzed course endeavored to stimulate double-loop learning. Focusing on dislocatory moments, this paper analyses how the course tried to teach participants to reflect upon their own practices, values, and ontologies, and whether this provided them with the resources necessary to reflect on their theories-in-use in their daily practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Bårdsen Hesjedal
- Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway
| | - Heidrun Åm
- Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway
| | - Knut H. Sørensen
- Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway
| | - Roger Strand
- Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities (SVT), University of Bergen, PB7805, NO-5020 Bergen, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Cvitanovic C, Löf MF, Norström AV, Reed MS. Building university-based boundary organisations that facilitate impacts on environmental policy and practice. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0203752. [PMID: 30212515 PMCID: PMC6136716 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203752] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/14/2018] [Accepted: 08/06/2018] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Responding to modern day environmental challenges for societal well-being and prosperity necessitates the integration of science into policy and practice. This has spurred the development of novel institutional structures among research organisations aimed at enhancing the impact of environmental science on policy and practice. However, such initiatives are seldom evaluated and even in cases where evaluations are undertaken, the results are rarely made publicly available. As such there is very little empirically grounded guidance available to inform other organisations in this regard. To help address this, the aim of this study is to evaluate the Baltic Eye Project at Stockholm University–a unique team consisting of researchers from different fields, science communicators, journalists and policy analysts–working collectively to support evidence-informed decision-making relating to the sustainable management of the Baltic Sea environment. Specifically, through qualitative interviews, we (1) identify the impacts achieved by the Baltic Eye Project; (2) understand the challenges and barriers experienced throughout the Baltic Eye Project; and (3) highlight the key features that are needed within research organisations to enhance the impact of science on policy and practice. Results show that despite only operating for three years, the Baltic Eye Project has achieved demonstrable impacts on a range of levels: impacts on policy and practice, impacts to individuals working within the organisation and impacts to the broader University. We also identify a range of barriers that have limited impacts to date, such as a lack of clear goals at the establishment of the Baltic Eye Project and existing metrics of academic impact (e.g. number of publications). Finally, based on the experiences of employees at the Baltic Eye Project, we identify the key organisational, individual, financial, material, practical, political, and social features of university-based boundary organisations that have impact on policy and practice. In doing so this paper provides empirically-derived guidance to help other research organisations increase their capacity to achieve tangible impacts on environmental policy and practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher Cvitanovic
- Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
- CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, Hobart, Australia
- * E-mail:
| | - Marie F. Löf
- Baltic Sea Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
| | | | - Mark S. Reed
- Centre for Rural Economy and Institute for Agri-Food Research and Innovation, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Bednarek AT, Wyborn C, Cvitanovic C, Meyer R, Colvin RM, Addison PFE, Close SL, Curran K, Farooque M, Goldman E, Hart D, Mannix H, McGreavy B, Parris A, Posner S, Robinson C, Ryan M, Leith P. Boundary spanning at the science-policy interface: the practitioners' perspectives. SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE 2018; 13:1175-1183. [PMID: 30147800 PMCID: PMC6086300 DOI: 10.1007/s11625-018-0550-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/14/2017] [Accepted: 03/08/2018] [Indexed: 05/24/2023]
Abstract
Cultivating a more dynamic relationship between science and policy is essential for responding to complex social challenges such as sustainability. One approach to doing so is to "span the boundaries" between science and decision making and create a more comprehensive and inclusive knowledge exchange process. The exact definition and role of boundary spanning, however, can be nebulous. Indeed, boundary spanning often gets conflated and confused with other approaches to connecting science and policy, such as science communication, applied science, and advocacy, which can hinder progress in the field of boundary spanning. To help overcome this, in this perspective, we present the outcomes from a recent workshop of boundary-spanning practitioners gathered to (1) articulate a definition of what it means to work at this interface ("boundary spanning") and the types of activities it encompasses; (2) present a value proposition of these efforts to build better relationships between science and policy; and (3) identify opportunities to more effectively mainstream boundary-spanning activities. Drawing on our collective experiences, we suggest that boundary spanning has the potential to increase the efficiency by which useful research is produced, foster the capacity to absorb new evidence and perspectives into sustainability decision-making, enhance research relevance for societal challenges, and open new policy windows. We provide examples from our work that illustrate this potential. By offering these propositions for the value of boundary spanning, we hope to encourage a more robust discussion of how to achieve evidence-informed decision-making for sustainability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - C. Wyborn
- Luc Hoffmann Institute, WWF International, Gland, Switzerland
- College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana USA
| | - C. Cvitanovic
- Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania Australia
| | - R. Meyer
- Center for Community and Citizen Science, University of California, Davis, California USA
| | - R. M. Colvin
- Climate Change Institute, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
| | | | - S. L. Close
- The Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington, DC, USA
| | - K. Curran
- The Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington, DC, USA
| | - M. Farooque
- Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona USA
| | - E. Goldman
- COMPASS Science Communication, Portland, Oregon USA
| | - D. Hart
- Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions, School of Biology and Ecology, University of Maine, Orono, Maine USA
| | - H. Mannix
- COMPASS Science Communication, Portland, Oregon USA
| | - B. McGreavy
- Department of Communication and Journalism, Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions, University of Maine, Orono, Maine USA
| | - A. Parris
- Science and Resilience Institute at Jamaica Bay, City University of New York, Brooklyn College, New York, New York USA
| | - S. Posner
- COMPASS Science Communication, Portland, Oregon USA
- Gund Institute for Environment, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont USA
| | - C. Robinson
- Engaging Scientists and Engineers in Policy, Washington, DC, USA
| | - M. Ryan
- Luc Hoffmann Institute, WWF International, Gland, Switzerland
- University of Cambridge Conservation Research Institute, Cambridge, UK
| | - P. Leith
- Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, School of Land and Food, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania Australia
| |
Collapse
|