Crossing boundaries: Social science in the policy room

Andrew Webster

doi:10.1177/0162243907301004

Crossing boundaries: Social science in the policy room

Andrew Webster

Department of Sociology

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

This article discusses the relationship between a deconstructivist method in science and technology studies (STS) and the more recent moves towards a reconstructivist engagement with science and science policy making. Drawing on examples from the author's own research, the article identifies three forms of engagement and their relative utility and limitations. The article argues that these are typical of STS work that seeks direct engagement with science policy making and which could form the basis for a more "serviceable STS" that retains its critical and independent perspective on science. The paper concludes by arguing that the analysis has important implications for the ways in which STS expertise can articulate with science policy making.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	458-478
Number of pages	21
Journal	Science, Technology and Human Values
Volume	32
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907301004
Publication status	Published - Jul 2007

Keywords

boundary
STS engagement
expertise
science policy
3RD WAVE
TECHNOLOGY
EXPERTISE
RISK

Access to Document

10.1177/0162243907301004

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243907301004

Cite this

@article{b705dcdf78c84e09afc170598cc99cfc,

title = "Crossing boundaries: Social science in the policy room",

abstract = "This article discusses the relationship between a deconstructivist method in science and technology studies (STS) and the more recent moves towards a reconstructivist engagement with science and science policy making. Drawing on examples from the author's own research, the article identifies three forms of engagement and their relative utility and limitations. The article argues that these are typical of STS work that seeks direct engagement with science policy making and which could form the basis for a more {"}serviceable STS{"} that retains its critical and independent perspective on science. The paper concludes by arguing that the analysis has important implications for the ways in which STS expertise can articulate with science policy making.",

keywords = "boundary, STS engagement, expertise, science policy, 3RD WAVE, TECHNOLOGY, EXPERTISE, RISK",

author = "Andrew Webster",

year = "2007",

month = jul,

doi = "10.1177/0162243907301004",

language = "English",

volume = "32",

pages = "458--478",

journal = "Science, Technology and Human Values",

issn = "0162-2439",

publisher = "SAGE",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Crossing boundaries

T2 - Social science in the policy room

AU - Webster, Andrew

PY - 2007/7

Y1 - 2007/7

N2 - This article discusses the relationship between a deconstructivist method in science and technology studies (STS) and the more recent moves towards a reconstructivist engagement with science and science policy making. Drawing on examples from the author's own research, the article identifies three forms of engagement and their relative utility and limitations. The article argues that these are typical of STS work that seeks direct engagement with science policy making and which could form the basis for a more "serviceable STS" that retains its critical and independent perspective on science. The paper concludes by arguing that the analysis has important implications for the ways in which STS expertise can articulate with science policy making.

AB - This article discusses the relationship between a deconstructivist method in science and technology studies (STS) and the more recent moves towards a reconstructivist engagement with science and science policy making. Drawing on examples from the author's own research, the article identifies three forms of engagement and their relative utility and limitations. The article argues that these are typical of STS work that seeks direct engagement with science policy making and which could form the basis for a more "serviceable STS" that retains its critical and independent perspective on science. The paper concludes by arguing that the analysis has important implications for the ways in which STS expertise can articulate with science policy making.

KW - boundary

KW - STS engagement

KW - expertise

KW - science policy

KW - 3RD WAVE

KW - TECHNOLOGY

KW - EXPERTISE

KW - RISK

U2 - 10.1177/0162243907301004

DO - 10.1177/0162243907301004

M3 - Article

VL - 32

SP - 458

EP - 478

JO - Science, Technology and Human Values

JF - Science, Technology and Human Values

SN - 0162-2439

IS - 4

ER -