Paper short abstract:

The paper discusses the set-up of an “embedded STS” project aimed at observing interdisciplinary in climate science whilst being affiliated with a climate research cluster and financed by a grant to climate science. I will discuss advantages as well as disadvantages of this practice of embeddedness.

Paper long abstract:

Hiring social scientists in research contexts is an increasingly common practice in fields such as the life sciences, nanotechnology and climate research. The employers expectations towards "our in house social scientist" include facilitation of inter- and transdisciplinary communication, exploration of political and ethical issues, lobbying for technological innovation and science outreach and education. In the case of climate change research, there is a noteworthy motivation from climate scientists themselves, being aware of the "post normal" (Funtowitz and Ravetz 1993) situation of the field and its associated "risks of communication" (Weingart et al. 2000). The social scientist him-/herself might imagine conducting ethnographic fieldwork, working in the tradition of laboratory studies to expose the social in scientific practice or to enhance respect for the workings of the social sciences building on his/her social science.

There is, however, as yet not much methodological reflection on this practice (exceptions include Krauss 2015, Viseu 2015, Doubleday and Viseu 2010). In my paper I describe how I have set up a project that observes interdisciplinary in climate research whilst being financed by a grant to climate science. I will discuss advantages as well as disadvantages of this practice of embeddedness. Questions to be addressed include: In how far is "embedded STS" different from traditional laboratory studies' observer roles, if at all? What are the challenges of being embedded, methodological and technical? And where does the move to embeddedness originate - what is the role of funders and science policy, research institutions, and social scientists themselves?