Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Rik Wehrens
(Erasmus University)
Eliana Bergamin (Erasmus University Rotterdam)
Gigi Vissers (Erasmus University Rotterdam)
Margot Kersing (Erasmus University Rotterdam)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Combined Format Open Panel
Short Abstract:
STS-scholars are increasingly working as ‘embedded researchers’ in health and technology consortia. In three sessions we 1) explore normative tensions and action repertoires; 2) identify modes of intervention; 3) develop a shared set of sensititivites to more consciously navigate dilemmas.
Long Abstract:
As healthcare systems in many European countries are facing workforce issues and an ageing population, policymakers and technology developers put their faith in an alleged digital health revolution in which integrated patient information is available through advanced analytics. Such optimistic techsolutionist narratives stress the transformative potential of digital health technologies for almost all aspects of care. At the funding level, these narratives lead to a trend of large-scale consortia in which technology developers, clinicians, managers, policymakers, and other stakeholders are expected to collaborate. Increasingly, the involvement of social scientists in these consortia is actively encouraged to enhance the societal relevance and acceptability of the innovations that are developed, tested, or implemented.
STS-scholars are increasingly working as ‘embedded researchers’ in such consortia. This raises various questions and struggles. How can we as STS-scholars contribute to responsible development by acting with hospital actors, patients, policymakers, technicians and industry in productive ways? Which tensions can emerge between different goals and interests of stakeholders, including ourselves? What are emerging risks and normative complexities for STS-scholars and how can we mitigate or work around these? And what are moments to withdraw from participating and how to decide on this?
In this three-panel-series, we reflect on such questions and experimentally tease out potential ways forward. First, we invite presentations on empirical research projects in which scholars reflect on their involvement in technology consortia in health and welfare, including experienced normative tensions. Second, we organize a dialogue session to tease out more general modes of intervention and action repertoires to enable responsible and ethical innovation. Third, we organize a workshop in which we translate these insights into a set of sensitivities aimed to help novel researchers to more consciously navigate some of the dilemmas and normative complexities and allow them to intervene more effectively.
Accepted contributions:
Session 1Julia Kurz (Technical University of Dortmund)
Short abstract:
In this reflection about being an embedded STS researcher I will argue that being an embedded STS researcher demands and likewise enables active positioning work that is driven by individual decisions, project design as well as by the context of the consortia and its members.
Long abstract:
This reflection about being an embedded STS researcher stems from a transdisciplinary project between computer graphics scientists, neurosurgeons, and STS-researchers that aimed at developing new modes of diagnostic-cooperative visualisations of relevant patient data. I will argue that being an embedded STS researcher demands and likewise enables active positioning work that is driven by individual decisions, project design as well as by the context of the consortia and its members.
My own basic normative idea was that the expertise and needs of all consortia members (including my own) must be considered for a successful, innovative, problem-solving output. As my main task I defined enabling collaboration on eye level between the disciplines. For this, I used my qualitative methods repertoire as a means for unveiling underlying relevance structures of the others and using them actively to empower or disempower them, with varying degrees of success. Was this the right way?
The others defined my roles and tasks in the project sometimes differently. For example, I should act as service provider or help making their own wishes acceptable to the others. Sometimes I was also disempowered, e.g. through exclusion from decision-making situations. All this shows a high degree of inclusion in the project process. But not everyone in every context must or can include herself in that extensive way. The original design of the project as symmetrical between technology development and theory building led to the very active positioning of the STS researcher. I welcome the discussion with more unobtrusive accounts.
Rik Wehrens (Erasmus University) Lieke Oldenhof (Erasmus University Rotterdam)
Short abstract:
We critically reflect on the role of ‘embedded social scientists’ in various digital health technology initiatives, describing emerging tensions and risks, and collectively probing more general modes of intervention and action repertoires to enable responsible and ethical innovation.
Long abstract:
Social scientists are increasingly involved in large health technology consortia to enhance the societal relevance and acceptability of the innovations that are developed, tested, or implemented. In this presentation, we critically reflect on the role of such ‘embedded social scientists’ in various digital health technology initiatives. How can we as social scientists contribute to responsible development by acting with hospital actors, patients, policy makers, data scientists and technological industry in productive ways? What kind of tensions can emerge between the different goals and interests of involved stakeholders, including ourselves? What are emerging risks and normative complexities for researchers and how can we solve or work around and/or with these? Based on our experiences in several consortia and partnerships for the development of digital technologies in health and welfare, we describe three tensions emerging from the conflicting agendas, goals, and expectations of different stakeholders, zooming in on how we navigated this normative complexity.
We hope this and other presentations on empirical research projects of scholars reflecting on their involvement in technology consortia in health and welfare can serve as the basis for a broader and interactive dialogue session and workshop with the audience. In the dialogue session we aim to tease out more general modes of intervention and action repertoires to enable responsible and ethical innovation. In the workshop we translate these insights into a set of sensitivities aimed to help researchers to more consciously navigate some of the dilemmas and normative complexities and allow them to intervene more effectively.