In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Conclusion: Future Research on Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise Michael E. Gorman This volume is not an end but a beginning. The 2006 workshop on Trading Zones, Interactional Expertise and Interdisciplinary Collaboration was followed by two workshops on Studies of Experience and Expertise (SEE), held by Harry Collins and Rob Evans at Cardiff. These workshops encouraged the development of a community of scholars who would continue work in SEE. In addition, the psychology of science, long considered a minor area in science and technology studies (STS) and in psychology, is now achieving status as an interdisciplinary field, with its own society and journal, the Journal of Psychology of Science and Technology. The study of scientific and technological expertise is one of its topics of interest (Gorman 2008). This section on future directions is adapted from a presentation Harry Collins gave on my behalf at the latest (2008) SEE meeting. There is no trading zone between SEE and the psychology of science at present, no creole or even shared jargon. There are advantages to having different perspectives on, and approaches to, the study of expertise . A trading zone creates a space for exchange without inhibiting this diversity of methods and perspectives. A new, united field might eventually emerge, or separate research communities might continue their own approaches. The point is to communicate while preserving diversity of knowledge, perspectives, and methods. A trading zone is essential because research on the psychology of expertise is relevant to SEE, and vice versa. As a first step toward creating a trading zone, let us consider methodological approaches from the psychology of science that might be useful for studying trading zones and interactional expertise; that is, fitting the research in this volume into the categories, and if the categories do not fit, transforming the categories. These categories were originally proposed by Kevin Dunbar and J. A. Fugelsang, who based them on an analogy to biological research (Dunbar and Fugelsang 2005). 15 290 Michael E. Gorman In Vitro In vitro studies correspond to laboratory experiments in psychology conducted via artificial tasks with participants who are not domain experts. One could, for example, turn a game like Civilization IV into a task where the survival of all civilizations would require the formation of trading zones. In Civ IV, each player manages a civilization over an extended interval of time, and has the choice to either cooperate or compete with other players managing different civilizations. Although the game does not simulate a tightly coupled system where a collapse can only be avoided by cooperation, such coupling could be achieved through an unequal distribution of vital resources over the simulated globe and through phenomena like global warming. These coupling variables could be manipulated to see their effects on trading zones. Interactional expertise could be incorporated by having additional participants with no prior knowledge of the game learn about it by conversing with those playing.1 Under what circumstances would these outsiders be able to acquire enough knowledge to pass as a gamer in serious conversation about strategies, preferred styles of play, and the like? Would they be able to pass as a gamer in a Turing test? An alternative is to do a simulation in which participants have to occupy different roles. Consider Nanosim, a simulation of the National Nanotechnology initiative that I have used in several of my classes at the University of Virginia, including an NSFsupported course on Societal Dimensions of Nanotechnology.2 Students are placed in groups corresponding to the following roles: • Congress, • Funding agencies like DARPA, NSF, and NIH, • Companies like IBM and entrepreneurial start-ups, • University laboratories, • NGOs like the Project on Emerging Technologies and ETC, • A newspaper that reports to all the other groups. Students representing laboratories and companies make choices about what nanotechnologies to create, and collaborate or compete as they move up a technology tree to acquire the rights to increasingly complex technologies. Those representing Congress supply funding, depending on how the research is justified, and can create rules to ensure fairness, societal goals, etc. Students representing NGOs can use a variety of strategies to encourage or block technologies. In order to create new technologies, Conclusion: Future Research on Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise 291 participants have to trade resources, intellectual property, and time. Outside events can also be introduced to alter the simulation. In order agree on goals for the NNI and make progress toward grand challenges like a cure for cancer or a space elevator, students have to form trading...


Additional Information

Related ISBN
MARC Record
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.