Social science and infrastructure networks and the human–technology interface
Source abstract
Abstract
Social science research (under the guise of SEI [societal and ethical implications]) in association with nanotechnology infrastructure networks (in this case, the Research Triangle Nanotechnology Network) is challenging due to the unique function of an infrastructure network. Infrastructure networks share laboratory resources and make available to the user in the early stages in the technological process. As such, characterization and fabrication activities demand fine-tuned social science tools appropriate to the subject instant. This article examines the application of a process of “deep assessment” akin to grounded theory that examines a subset of societal and ethical issues derived from assessing activities proximate to users as they interface with the network. It presents assessment data over the last 5 years that is being used to design the research questions and research hypotheses that answer some of the most important societal concerns of the infrastructure network. These highly valued SEI activities are contextually relevant to the operation and management of the facilities in the infrastructure.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration · Biomedical and Engineering Education · Sustainability in Higher Education
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (27)
Show source-provided references
1. Bennett LM, Gadlin H (2012) Collaboration and team science: from theory to practice. J Investig Med 60(5):768–775. https://doi.org/10.2310/JIM.0b013e318250871d10.2310/JIM.0b013e318250871d ↗
2. Berube DM (2006a) Nanohype: the truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. Prometheus Books
3. Berube D (2006b) The ‘magic’ of nano. Nanotechnol Percept 2:249–255
4. Berube D (2008) Rhetorical gamesmanship in the nano debates over sunscreens and nanoparticles. J Nanopart Res 10:23–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-008-9362-710.1007/s11051-008-9362-7 ↗
5. Berube D (2018) How social science should complement scientific discovery: lessons from nanoscience. J Nanopart Res 20:120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-018-4210-x10.1007/s11051-018-4210-x ↗
6. Berube D, Cummings C, Cacciatore M, Scheufele D, Kalin J (2011) Characteristics and classification of nanoparticles: expert Delphi survey. Nanotoxicology 5(2):236–242. https://doi.org/10.3109/17435390.2010.52163310.3109/17435390.2010.521633 ↗
7. Bogomoletc E, Eng N, Berube D (2019) Social science and the infrastructure networks and the human- technology interface. A paper presented at the SRA National Conference. Arlington, VA. December 10
8. Bozeman B, Youtie J (2017) The strength in numbers: the new science of team science. Princeton University Press10.2307/j.ctvc77bn7 ↗
9. Brown VA, Harris JA, Russell JY (2010) Tackling wicked problems: through the transdisciplinary imagination. Earthscan10.4324/9781849776530 ↗
10. Bryant A, Charmaz K (2007) Grounded theory research: methods and practices. In: Bryant A, Charmaz K. (eds) The sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 1–28). SAGE10.4135/9781848607941 ↗
11. Charmaz K (2006) Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE
12. Derrington D (1991) Proximity, the standard of care and damage: relating the elements of negligence. Univ Qld Law J 10:272–277
13. Ellul J, Wilkinson J, Merton RK (1964) The technological society (Vol. 303). Vintage Books
14. Gigerenzer G (2018) The bias bias in behavioral economics. Rev Behav Econ 5:303–336. https://doi.org/10.1561/105.0000009210.1561/105.00000092 ↗
15. Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 ↗
16. Kulinowski K (2004) Nanotechnology: from ‘wow’ to ‘yuck’? Bull Sci Technol Soc 24(1):13–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/027046760426311210.1177/0270467604263112 ↗
17. Lempert LB (2007) Asking questions of the data: memo writing in the grounded theory tradition. In: A. Bryant & K. Charmaz. (Eds), The sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 245–264). SAGE10.4135/9781848607941.n12 ↗
18. National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure (n.d.) About the NNCI. https://www.nnci.net/about-nnci
19. National Nanotechnology Initiative (n.d.) Benefits and applications. https://www.nano.gov/you/nanotechnology-benefits
20. National Research Council (2015) Enhancing the effectiveness of team science The National Academies Press 10.17226/19007
21. Nickerson RS (1998) Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol 2(2):175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.17510.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 ↗
22. Postman N (1993) Technopoly: the surrender of culture to technology. Vintage Books
23. Research Triangle Nanotechnology Network (2020) About. https://www.rtnn.ncsu.edu/about
24. Roco M, Bainbridge WS Eds. (2004) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology II: maximizing human benefit. Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop, December 3–5, 2003, Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation
25. RTNN (2019) Report (2019). Annual Reports. https://www.rtnn.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2020/08/RTNN-Glossy-Report-2019-Final.pdf
26. Vance ME, Kuiken T, Vejerano EP, McGinnis SP, Hochella MF Jr, Rejeski D, Hull MS (2015) Nanotechnology in the real world: redeveloping the nanomaterial consumer products inventory. Beilstein J Nanotechnol 6:1769–1780. https://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.6.18110.3762/bjnano.6.181 ↗
27. Zipursky BC (2009) Foreseeability in breach, duty, and proximate cause. Wake For Law Rev 44:1245–1275 https://ssrn.com/abstract=1601303