Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethnographic Invention: Probing the Capacity of Laboratory Decisions

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In an attempt to shape the development of nanotechnologies, ethics policy programs promote engagement in the hope of broadening the scope of considerations that scientists and engineers take into account. While enhancing the reflexivity of scientists theoretically implies changes in technoscientific practice, few empirical studies demonstrate such effects. To investigate the real-time effects on engineering research practices, a laboratory engagement study was undertaken to specify the interplay of technical and social considerations during the normal course of research. The study employed an ethnographic invention in the form of a decision model to structure reflection on ongoing social processes. A short series of interactions with one engineering researcher illustrates the deployment of the model in the form of an interview protocol. The cultural embedment of the protocol allowed it to function as a feedback mechanism, creating a more self-critical environment for knowledge production, and perturbing the system in research-tolerable ways.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A term coined in conversation with Carl Mitcham.

  2. The idea of creating architecture to house human and material practices can be compared to Paul Rabinow and Gaymon Bennett’s notion of ‘contemporary equipment.’

  3. A decision is here defined as a ‘commitment to a course of action.’

  4. The analytical limitations of this particular invention from the standpoint of social science represented a concession to the collaborative enterprise. For instance, the conceptual overlap of opportunities and considerations meant that the same component could register in either of these categories. Additionally, it compressed a wealth of anthropological data into the considerations component, which could become overloaded with social networks, organizational structures, imaginaries, infrastructure, etc.

  5. The tables represent K’s more or less sequential responses to the various components during interviews; thus, they do not convey all the content discussed in my analysis here.

References

  1. US Congress (2003) 21st century nanotechnology research and development act, US Public Law 108-153, 108th Congress, December 3 2003. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

  2. US House of Representatives, Committee on Science (2003) House Report 108-89. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  3. Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 24:93–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. The Royal Society, London

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wilsdon J (2005) Paddling upstream: new currents in European technology assessment. In: Rejeski D (ed) The future of technology assessment. Foresight and governance project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, pp 22–28

  6. Wilsdon J, Wynne B, Stigloe J (2005). The public value of science: or how to ensure that science really matters. Demos, London

    Google Scholar 

  7. Macnaughten P, Kearnes M, Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Sci Commun 27(2):1–24

    Google Scholar 

  8. De Witte P, Schuddeboom P (2006) NanoNed annual report 2005. NanoNed Office, Utrecht

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rip A (2005) Technology assessment as part of the co-evolution of nanotechnology and society: the thrust of the TA program in NanoNed. Nanotechnology in science, economy and society. Marburg, Germany, January 13–15

  10. Schot J (2005) Constructive technology assessment. In: Mitcham C (ed) Encyclopedia of science, technology, and ethics. MacMillan Reference USA, New York, pp 423–426

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rip A, Misa TJ, Schot J (1995) Managing technology in society: the approach of constructive technology assessment. Pinter, London

    Google Scholar 

  12. Schot J, Rip A (1997) The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Change 54:251–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schot J (2001) Towards new forms of participatory technology development. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 13:39–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Flemish Institute for Science and Technology (March 2006) NanoSoc: nanotechnologies for tomorrow’s society. Unpublished project description

  15. Goorden L, van Oudheusden M, Evers J, Deblonde M (in press) In: Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore J (eds) Yearbook of nanotechnology in society, vol 1: excavating nanotechnology’s futures. Springer Science and Business Media, New York

  16. Berne R (2006) Nano-ethics. In: Mitcham C (ed) Encyclopedia of science, technology, and ethics. MacMillan Reference USA, New York, pp 1259–1262

    Google Scholar 

  17. Berne R (2004) Tiny ethics for big challenges: calling for an ethics of nanoscale science and engineering. IEEE Circuits Devices Mag, May/June, 10–17

  18. Sweeney AE (2006) Social and ethical dimensions of nanoscale science and engineering research. Sci Eng Ethics 12(3):435–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fisher E, Mahajan RL (2006) Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development. Sci Public Policy 33(1):5–16

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gorman ME, Groves JF, Catalano RK (2004) Societal dimensions of nanotechnology. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 23(4):55–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Merkerk RO, Smits REHM (2007) Tailoring CTA for emerging technologies. Technol Forecast Soc Change (in press)

  22. Pinch TJ, Bijker WE (1987) The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In: Pinch TJ, Hughes TP, Bijker WE (eds) The Social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 17–50

    Google Scholar 

  23. Van den Belt H, Rip A (1987) The Nelson Winter Dosi model and synthetic dye chemistry. In: Pinch TJ, Hughes TP, Bijker WE (eds) The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 187–199

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jackson R, Barbagallo F, Haste H (2005) Strengths of public dialogue on science-related issues. Crit Rev Int Soc Polit Philos 8(3):349–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bijker WE (1995) Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: toward a theory of sociotechnical change. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  26. Arthur B (1969) Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Econ J 99:115–131

    Google Scholar 

  27. Collingridge D (1980) The social control of technology. Frances Pinter, London

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fisher E, Mahajan RL, Mitcham C (2006) Midstream modulation of technology: governance from within. Bull Sci Technol Soc 26(6):485–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sismondo S (2004) An introduction to science and technology studies. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  30. Traweek S (1988) Beamtimes and lifetimes: the world of high energy physicists. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bucciarelli LL (1994) Designing engineers. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  32. Knorr Cetina KD (1995) Laboratory studies: the cultural approach to the study of science. In: Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Petersen JC, Pinch TJ (eds) Handbook of science, technology and society. Sage, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  33. Owen-Smith J (2001) Managing laboratory work through skepticism: processes of evaluation and control. Am Sociol Rev 66(3):427–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lasswell HD (1971) A pre-view of policy sciences. American Elsevier Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  35. Clark TW (2002) The policy process. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pickering A (1995) The mangle of practice: time, agency, and science. University Of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  37. Fisher E, Mahajan RL (2006) Midstream modulation of nanotechnology research in an academic laboratory. American Society for Mechanical Engineers International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. Chicago, Illinois, November 5–10

  38. de Castell S, Walker T (1991) Identity, metamorphosis, and ethnographic research: what ‘kind’ of story is ‘ways with words’? Anthropol Educ Q 22(1):3–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Clark Miller, Shiv Visvanathan, Arie Rip, David Guston, Elizabeth McNie, David Conz, Rutger van Merkerk, Paul Rabinow, and two anonymous reviewers for commenting on earlier drafts of the paper; Roop Mahajan, Carl Mitcham, Michael Lightner, Juan Lucena, Roger Pielke, Jr., Doug Sicker, and Ron Brunner for their input on the project objectives and design; and the researchers in the Thermal and Nanotechnology Laboratory, including Gurpreet Singh, Paul Rice, Frank Kreith, and especially Krishna Ramadurai. Michael Gorman and Jane Macoubrie commented on early versions of a decision protocol. This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under cooperative agreement #0531194.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 874401, Tempe, AZ, 85282-4401, USA

    Erik Fisher

Authors
  1. Erik Fisher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erik Fisher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fisher, E. Ethnographic Invention: Probing the Capacity of Laboratory Decisions. Nanoethics 1, 155–165 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0016-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0016-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation