Integrating the Sciences and Society: Challenges, Practices, and Potentials: Volume 16

In current academia, as Fox points out in the opening chapter of this volume, knowledge fields are characterized by an implicit (and sometimes explicit) hierarchy, which posits a higher ranking for the “hard” and natural sciences as opposed to the social sciences and humanities. This has influenced education as well as other social arenas. Students in the social sciences have long benefited from the “exact” sciences and the technology they have produced. Numerous texts present “Statistics for the Social Sciences”; computer applications are developed particularly for social science use (e.g., SPSS); physics, chemistry, and math classes are offered for non-majors across college campuses. The texts, computer applications, and courses adapt the scientific discipline to the needs of non-science or non-math majors, broadening the impact of the respective disciplines to a wider audience, and allowing the way of thinking in one discipline to influence the others. But one would scarcely find “Sociology for the Uninitiated,” or “Social Science for Engineers.” Not that there are no social scientists eager to impart their insights to their STEM colleagues and students. In fact there is a whole movement of “public sociology,” which endeavors to share sociological insights with many types of lay audiences as well as engage sociology in public issues on many topics and levels (ASA Task Force, 2005; Burawoy, 2005). But in all too many campuses STEM students cannot fit an elective into their tight curriculum, designed to meet strict accreditation criteria, and social science winds up somewhere low on the list of priorities. To be fair, some accreditation bodies have recognized the need to introduce undergraduate students to societal contexts. For example, since their seminal EC (Engineering Criteria) 2000, ABET (the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) has incorporated into the annually updated program outcomes required for accreditation that students have “the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental and societal context” (ABET, 2007: Criterion 3h). But sometimes this outcome requirement is wedged into an ethics section, often taking up less than a two-week stint in the total undergraduate education. For an example of a more extensive application, see my website, http://users.rowan.edu/∼hartman/SocStem/index.html, where an outline of social science concepts, bibliography, and teaching ideas are developed for introducing STEM students to social science. Common sociological concepts and perspectives are illustrated in STEM contexts or using research in or on STEM subject matter. There is much material here upon which to build bridges.

Purpose – This chapter analyzes the issues, challenges, and opportunities of research and programmatic collaborations between science and social science.

Approach – Analyzed are the features of fields and the consequences of these features for partnership among scientists and social scientists.

Findings – The issues and challenges of collaboration between science and social science are rooted in – and reflect – variable levels of “consensus” and paradigm development, positions in the hierarchy of fields, and research practices. The opportunities lie in the collaboration as a strategic alliance.

Implications – The gains realized in successful collaborations between science and social science point to the importance of not simply bridging knowledge across fields, but also of bringing together people and ideas through mechanisms of leadership, management, and successful association.

Value – The chapter contributes to understanding about the growing, but still infrequent, collaborations between science and social science, and provides analyses that help support potential collaborations between these fields.

Who can make claims “to know?” This chapter argues that there are distinct sets of understandings in social science versus STEM fields, and that STEM education research can benefit from interdisciplinarity, instead of being disciplinary (principally the purview of STEM insiders). The concept “gender” proves illustrative. Among many social science scholars, gender is understood as a complex social construction: contingent, contextual, contested ways that masculinities and femininities are embodied, enacted, and differentiated in everyday social life – as compared to simple, dichotomous male–female comparisons. Comparing social science and STEM conceptualizations of gender leads to three conclusions. First, empirical research with more forward-looking conceptualizations demonstrate that outdated underpinnings in STEM research overlook important issues, such as seeking solutions within individuals (especially students) instead of in the educational community or STEM culture. Second, since the frontier of social science keeps moving, and STEM insiders’ appreciations will necessarily lag new understandings, STEM-insider research might unfortunately be outdated from inception. Thirdly, the chapter concludes that collaborations between/among STEM and social science scholars have greater potential for research with explanatory power, research able to contribute better understandings of and solutions for dilemmas of STEM education.

Purpose – Mainstream science, technology, and society (STS) scholars have shown little interest in engineering ethics, one going so far as to label engineering ethics activists as “shit shovelers.” Detachment from engineering ethics on the part of most STS scholars is related to a broader and long-standing split between the scholar-oriented and activist-oriented wings of STS. This chapter discusses the various STS “subcultures” and argues that the much-maligned activist STS subculture is far more likely than the mainstream scholar subculture to have a significant impact on engineering ethics education and practice.

Approach – The chapter builds on analyses of STS subcultures in research and education from the literature and identifies a similar set of subcultures for engineering ethics research and education.

Findings – Reconciliation of the STS subcultures will tap an activist tradition that already has strong ties (practical, historical, and theoretical) to engineering ethics research and education. Acknowledging that STS and engineering ethics each have legitimate, activist-oriented subcultures will position STS scholars and educators for providing needed insights to engineering activists and the engineering profession as a whole. STSers should recognize and appreciate that many engineering ethicists and engineering activists are concerned both with issues internal to the profession and broader social implications of technology.

Originality/value – The chapter presents an analysis of STS subcultures and their relationship to engineering ethics. As such, it will be of interest to STS scholars and engineering ethicists alike, as well as engineering ethics and STS educators.

Purpose – A geologist and sociologist have developed a pair of Earth resource courses to teach geology in global context and critical thinking and negotiation skills. The energy and minerals courses emphasize the physical and geological sciences as well as an understanding of the political, social structural, cultural, economic, and environmental factors that influence resource extraction and use. We are seeking to develop the global citizenship skills students will need to participate in future discussions on Earth resource issues. To this end, active learning approaches involve students in group problem solving and negotiation.

Methodology – For five years we have been developing these courses and regularly assessing the accomplishment of course goals. Focus groups and before/after surveys guide course modifications.

Findings – Though limited, our evidence shows an increased awareness and willingness on the part of our students to engage in discussions searching for solutions to Earth resource issues. Geology students are enthusiastic about the content that goes beyond geology. Non-geology students appreciate knowing more of the science of Earth resources that help thereby providing critical insight and background for their interest in environmental and social problems.

Value of the paper – The L(SC)2 paradigm we have developed can be adopted or adapted to a variety of possible partnerships between the sciences and the social sciences and humanities. Studying Earth resource issues in global context connects the immediate concerns of consumers to the practices and problems of Earth resource extraction and processing around the world to better foster citizen involvement.

The sociology of science and technology, although a lively field (Lynch, 1993; Shapin, 1995; Pinch, 2006), continues to be little taught within American sociology departments. The practitioners are often to be found within interdisciplinary Science and Technology Studies (S&TS) programs and departments. S&TS is a newly emerging discipline. In 2007 for the first time the NRC in the US included it as an “emerging discipline” within its annual ranking exercises. This peculiarly “interdisciplinary discipline” (in other words it has interdisciplinary roots largely in sociology, philosophy, history, political science, law, anthropology, cultural studies, and feminism, but has now formed a sufficiently stable body of canonical works, handbooks, PhD programs, and the like that it is becoming institutionalized as a new discipline in its own right), takes science, technology, and medicine as its object of study and examines its knowledge, practices, and embedding in culture and society using largely humanistic and social science methods. Often the practitioners of S&TS have their first degrees in the sciences or engineering and a higher degree in the humanities and social sciences. Many S&TS departments, as well as teaching their own majors, and offering capstone courses, carry out a service role teaching engineering and science students. These latter students often take S&TS courses to meet humanities distribution requirements. In the past they may have taken courses on Shakespeare and the like but now they look for something a bit more relevant to their careers. Such courses present an unusual opportunity to teach fundamental sociological ideas to scientists and engineers. For these students it is often their first and perhaps only encounter with the world of academic sociology. In this chapter I report on the experiences of developing and teaching one such course, “What is Science?”. I offer this account in the hope that other teachers may benefit from what I have learnt in my 14-year experience of offering this course.

The role of social science in the curriculum of technical institutions of higher learning has always represented a series of tradeoff challenges and opportunities. Recently, issues to be addressed by those developing curricula for this audience have received increased attention. The difficulties that social and physical scientists have had collaborating on research projects have also been a matter of increasing attention and concern. Hence, to enrich this discussion we will offer a historical case study covering a 35-year (so far) experiment at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) in which both organizational and educational issues had to be addressed as faculty members of both backgrounds worked with technical students on educational projects dealing with social issues.

Purpose – In this chapter, we report on the lessons of cross-disciplinary collaborative workshop between sociologists and engineering educators to synthesize what is known about legitimating and disseminating educational reform and to develop a research agenda for what needs to be known in order to spread educational reform and to overcome on-the-ground resistance to change.

Methodology/approach – This chapter is based on a case study of this workshop, describing the “white papers” prepared by participants prior to the workshop and the research agendas that emerged from discussions of them during the workshop and after.

Findings – The workshop resulted in a sophisticated research agenda as well as some modest efforts to create cross-disciplinary links to implement it. However, a one-time workshop did not overcome institutional barriers to this kind of activity.

Research limitations – Since this is a case study of a single collaboration we cannot generalize to all cross-disciplinary collaborations, although it does provide an example of what works to facilitate cross-disciplinary efforts and what obstacles remain.

Practical implications – An advantage to the workshop was the absence of institutional barriers to cross-disciplinary collaboration. Attendees were removed from their institutions, departments, disciplines, and turf battles. However, without increased institutional support for cross-disciplinary efforts, such as this one, the value of the social sciences for diffusing the innovations of science and engineering reform movements may not be realized.

An important element of more closely linking science – as a process as well as its outcomes – to society is to create interdisciplinary approaches to scholarship, teaching, and learning. Such interdisciplinary work directly improves the way that ideas and skills are taught in the classroom as well as encourages more creative scholarship, more collaborative research projects, and more effective applications of research findings. Creation of consistent and on-going interdisciplinary contact, cooperation, and collaboration between faculty members from the social sciences, humanities, and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields can be encouraged with the development of pedagogical partnerships through engagement with Faculty Learning Communities (FLCs). In this chapter, we first describe FLCs and then discuss how they can encourage interdisciplinary intellectual and scholarly community development. We provide examples to illustrate the role that personal and intellectual community building plays in linking the different disciplinary approaches. Finally, we highlight the potential impact that interdisciplinary collaborations can have on creating permanent links between science and society.

Although recent decades have seen increasing calls for fundamental change in the teaching of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics (SEM), efforts to more broadly propagate proven innovations have met with only modest success despite (i) numerous national reports calling for changes, (ii) considerable funding that has been invested in SEM education improvements, and (iii) the growing body of literature on the superior efficacy of many curricular innovations. This chapter suggests that SEM innovators, while expert in their fields, may need to thoughtfully consider research and literature on change, both within higher education and including broader work on organizational change. From a review of the literature on change in higher education, two particular challenges are identified: goal ambiguity and narrow focus of change initiatives. To address these challenges, the authors offer a conceptual framework for decisions that SEM educational change agents make as they design and implement their change initiatives. Within this framework, they offer options and combinations of options that change agents might consider. Given the breadth and complexity of the literature and challenges of change, SEM educational change agents might consider forming collaborations to which they would contribute their disciplinary expertise in one of the three research communities. They might team with individuals who bring requisite expertise from other research communities or with respect to individual and organizational change. Such partnerships might develop approaches that would concurrently address multiple foci. Collaborations that included expertise in individual and organizational change would also be better prepared to navigate complexities of institutional change.

A century ago, the ancestors of modern computers were largely devoted to analysis of social data, but sociology and computer science diverged, and today they need to be reunited. This conceptual chapter argues for the development of an integrated social-information science, in order to understand and develop socio-technical information systems, to explore and extend recommender and reputation systems, to establish the cultural basis for flourishing virtual worlds, and to deal with revolutionary issues concerning intellectual property rights. It suggests that three forms of human–machine collaboration will become increasingly important: (1) partnerships between humans and information technology, (2) cultures jointly created by the human mind and information technology, and (3) environments where humans and machines cooperate.

This chapter applauds the growing move toward social science collaboration with colleagues in other fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Drawing on several decades of experience in working with biophysical scientists and engineers, as well as on prior literature, I offer three main observations. First, STEM colleagues will often expect social scientists to play the role of public relations specialists, helping to “educate” the public, or to convince people that our STEM colleagues already have the right answers. Second, part of our job is a different kind of “science education” – educating STEM colleagues about basic principles of democratic governance. Third, we have an opportunity and an obligation to ask not just what social science can contribute to STEM, but also, what working with STEM colleagues can contribute to the social sciences. There appear to be particularly important opportunities for gaining insights into some of the less visible or obvious dynamics of power and privilege.

William Sims Bainbridge earned his doctorate in Sociology from Harvard University, with a dissertation based on research about the space program. He is the author of 13 books, 4 textbook-software packages, and about 200 shorter publications in information science, social science of technology, and the sociology of religion. Most recently, he is the editor of the Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human–Computer Interaction and author of God from the Machine (2006), Nanoconvergence (2007), and Across the Secular Abyss (2007). At the National Science Foundation since 1992, he has represented the social and behavioral sciences on five advanced technology initiatives, and represented computer science on the Nanotechnology initiative and the Human and Social Dynamics initiative. Currently, he is program director for Human-Centered Computing, after having directed the Sociology, Human Computer Interaction, Science and Engineering Informatics, and Artificial Intelligence programs.