5 found
Matthew Kearnes [5]Matthew B. Kearnes [1]
  1.  41
    Matthew Kearnes & Brian Wynne (2007). On Nanotechnology and Ambivalence: The Politics of Enthusiasm. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 1 (2):131-142.
    The promise of scientific and technological innovation – particularly in fields such as nanotechnology – is increasingly set against what has been articulated as a deficit in public trust in both the new technologies and regulatory mechanisms. Whilst the development of new technology is cast as providing contributions to both quality of life and national competitiveness, what has been termed a ‘legitimacy crisis’ is seen as threatening the vitality of this process. However in contrast to the risk debates that dominated (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   12 citations  
  2.  3
    Matthew Kearnes, Phil Macnaghten & Sarah R. Davies (2014). Narrative, Nanotechnology and the Accomplishment of Public Responses: A Response to Thorstensen. NanoEthics 8 (3):241-250.
    In this paper, we respond to a critique by Erik Thorstensen of the ‘Deepening Ethical Engagement and Participation in Emerging Nanotechnologies’ project concerning its ‘realist’ treatment of narrative, its restricted analytical framework and resources, its apparent confusion in focus and its unjustified contextualisation and overextension of its findings. We show that these criticisms are based on fairly serious misunderstandings of the DEEPEN project, its interdisciplinary approachand its conceptual context. Having responded to Thorstensen’s criticisms, we take the opportunity to clarify and (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  3.  10
    Matthew Kearnes & Matthias Wienroth (2011). Tools of the Trade: UK Research Intermediaries and the Politics of Impacts. [REVIEW] Minerva 49 (2):153-174.
    In recent years questions concerning the impact of public research funding have become the preeminent site at which struggles over the meanings and value of science are played out. In this paper we explore the ‘politics of impact’ in contemporary UK science and research policy and, in particular, detail the ways in which UK research councils have responded to and reframed recent calls for the quantitative measurement of research impacts. Operating as ‘boundary organisations’ research councils are embroiled in what might (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  4.  3
    Matthew Kearnes (2008). Informationalising Matter: Systems Understandings of the Nanoscale. Spontaneous Generations 2 (1):99.
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  5.  3
    Matthew Kearnes (2013). On Guidebooks, Lists and Nanotechnology. Minerva 51 (4):513-519.
    Much like an exotic city, a computer programme or an artistic exhibition, new technologies often require guidebooks. This is particularly the case for nanotechnology, a multifaceted and diverse research programme characterised by canonical origin stories, seemingly limitless claims about its potential to transform everything from sunscreen to space travel, the nascent ingredients for a public risk controversy and state-level coordination of research funding and support measures. If ever anyone was in any doubt, What is Nanotechnology and Why Does It Matter? (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography