J Britt Holbrook | New Jersey Institute of Technology (original) (raw)

Uploads

Books by J Britt Holbrook

Papers by J Britt Holbrook

This essay argues that political, economic, and cultural developments have made the twentieth cen... more This essay argues that political, economic, and cultural developments have made the twentieth century disciplinary approach to philosophy unsustainable. It (a) discusses the reasons behind this unsustainability, which also affect the academy at large, (b) describes applied philosophy as an inadequate theoretical reaction to contemporary societal pressures, and (c) proposes a dedisciplined and interstitial approach--"field philosophy"--as a better response to the challenges facing the twenty-first century philosophy.

Journal of Responsible Innovation

This essay argues that principles should play a limited role in policy making. It first illustrat... more This essay argues that principles should play a limited role in policy making. It first illustrates the dilemma of timely action in the face of uncertain unintended consequences. It then introduces the precautionary and proactionary principles as different alignments of knowledge and action within the policymaking process. The essay next considers a cynical and a hopeful reading of the role of these principles in public policy debates. We argue that the two principles, despite initial appearances, are not all that different when it comes to formulating public policy. We also suggest that allowing principles to determine our actions undermines the sense of autonomy necessary for true action.

RT: A Journal of Reseach Policy and Evaluation, Jul 21, 2013

This paper describes the results of a survey regarding the incorporation of societal impacts cons... more This paper describes the results of a survey regarding the incorporation of societal impacts considerations into the peer review of grant proposals submitted to public science funding bodies. The survey investigated perceptions regarding the use of scientific peers to judge not only the intrinsic scientific value of proposed research, but also its instrumental value to society. Members of the scientific community have expressed – some more stridently than others – resistance to the use of such societal impact considerations. We sought to understand why. Results of the survey suggest that such resistance may be due to a lack of desire rather than a lack of confidence where judging impacts is concerned. In other words, it may be less that scientists feel unable to judge broader societal impacts and more that they are unwilling to do so.

Please refer to: Holbrook, J. Britt and Adam Briggle. 2013. “Knowing and acting: The precautionar... more Please refer to: Holbrook, J. Britt and Adam Briggle. 2013. “Knowing and acting: The precautionary and proactionary principles in relation to policy making.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2 (5): 15.

Editor’s Note: The following e-mail exchange on Holbrook and Briggle’s “Knowing and Acting” (published on the SERRC as a pre-print on 16 April 2013) took place from 20 to 22 March 2013. The participants are J. Britt Holbrook, Adam Briggle, Veronika Lipinska and Steve Fuller.

Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2 (5): 15, Apr 16, 2013

This essay explores the relationship between knowledge (in the form of scientific risk assessment... more This essay explores the relationship between knowledge (in the form of scientific risk assessment) and action (in the form of technological innovation) as they come together in policy, which itself is both a kind of knowing and acting. It first illustrates the dilemma of timely action in the face of uncertain unintended consequences. It then introduces the precautionary and proactionary principles as different alignments of knowledge and action within the policymaking process. The essay next considers a cynical and a hopeful reading of the role of these principles in public policy debates. We argue that the two principles, despite initial appearances, are not all that different when it comes to formulating public policy. We also suggest that principles in general can be used either to guide our actions, or to determine them for us. We argue that allowing principles to predetermine our actions undermines the sense of autonomy necessary for true action.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, a... more JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

To state the obvious, peer review is used in all sorts of contexts other than prepublication of j... more To state the obvious, peer review is used in all sorts of contexts other than prepublication of journal articles. The most common of these other contexts is the peer review of grant proposals for research funding. In this presentation, I consider whether altmetrics may be of help to proposers and reviewers in addressing what has become a divisive issue in the peer review of grant proposals: addressing and assessing the potential broader impacts of the proposed activities.

PERSPECTIVES terion into an advertisement for science and technology. One can hardly blame EPO pr... more PERSPECTIVES terion into an advertisement for science and technology. One can hardly blame EPO professionals for marketing themselves as experts who can help with issues of broader effects. Unfortunately, however, EPO professionals have now come to be viewed as the group uniquely qualified to help scientists confused about how to satisfy the broader impacts criterion.

Workshop conversations cluster under the four headings of the history and definitions, promotion,... more Workshop conversations cluster under the four headings of the history and definitions, promotion, evaluation, and integration of transformative research (TR): 1. History and Definitions: The National Science Board's 2007 report (NSB-07-32) on transformative research called for more effort directed at defining TR. The present report offers additional context and clarity regarding meanings of the term. But it also argues that there are virtues in leaving the term open to multiple interpretations. 2. Promotion: The report welcomes new mechanisms for promoting TR, such as NSF 'CREATIV' grants. It embraces additional means for promoting TR, such as increased emphasis on interdisciplinary research, and explores how different interpretations of how TR occurs imply different strategies for promoting TR. It also calls for increased attention to the broader societal impacts of TR at the levels of policy, of NSF programs, and of individual research projects. 3. Evaluation: The report emphasizes the need to develop means for evaluating attempts to promote TR. It also concludes that research should be directed toward evaluating transformative research at the project level. 4. Integration: The report suggests that consideration of the broader societal impacts of TR be fully integrated with transformative research itself. Attention to the broader impacts of TR should inform the development of policies and programs designed to promote TR, for instance through the creation of mechanisms such as an Advisory Committee for Transformative Research (ACTR).

In 2005, I published the first scholarly article on the US National Science Foundation’s Broader ... more In 2005, I published the first scholarly article on the US National Science Foundation’s Broader Impacts Merit Review Criterion. In the intervening years, much has happened, both in terms of scholarship on the Broader Impacts Criterion and in terms of the Broader Impacts Criterion itself. Here, I revisit that original article, answering some questions, filling in some blanks, expanding some bits, contracting others, updating and generally rethinking the whole thing. The National Science Board has also rethought the Broader Impacts Criterion, and 2011 marks the gestation, if not the birth, of a much different criterion, a sort of Broader Impacts 2.0. Now, then, seems like the perfect time to think once again about NSF’s Broader Impacts Criterion and about the dialectic between the values of autonomy and accountability in the science – society relation.

Vague impact criteria are a blessing in disguise. Researchers who push against criteria that allo... more Vague impact criteria are a blessing in disguise. Researchers who push against criteria that allow considerable autonomy are foolish and should learn from overseas contemporaries that a clearer definition of impact requirements is not dissimiliar from a tightening of the noose.

Describes changes in US NSF's merit review criteria. Argues that scientists are more likely to pr... more Describes changes in US NSF's merit review criteria. Argues that scientists are more likely to preserve their autonomy by embracing -- or 'owning' -- the new Broader Impacts Criterion rather than resisting it.

Social Epistemology, Jan 1, 2009

This essay argues that political, economic, and cultural developments have made the twentieth cen... more This essay argues that political, economic, and cultural developments have made the twentieth century disciplinary approach to philosophy unsustainable. It (a) discusses the reasons behind this unsustainability, which also affect the academy at large, (b) describes applied philosophy as an inadequate theoretical reaction to contemporary societal pressures, and (c) proposes a dedisciplined and interstitial approach--"field philosophy"--as a better response to the challenges facing the twenty-first century philosophy.

Journal of Responsible Innovation

This essay argues that principles should play a limited role in policy making. It first illustrat... more This essay argues that principles should play a limited role in policy making. It first illustrates the dilemma of timely action in the face of uncertain unintended consequences. It then introduces the precautionary and proactionary principles as different alignments of knowledge and action within the policymaking process. The essay next considers a cynical and a hopeful reading of the role of these principles in public policy debates. We argue that the two principles, despite initial appearances, are not all that different when it comes to formulating public policy. We also suggest that allowing principles to determine our actions undermines the sense of autonomy necessary for true action.

RT: A Journal of Reseach Policy and Evaluation, Jul 21, 2013

This paper describes the results of a survey regarding the incorporation of societal impacts cons... more This paper describes the results of a survey regarding the incorporation of societal impacts considerations into the peer review of grant proposals submitted to public science funding bodies. The survey investigated perceptions regarding the use of scientific peers to judge not only the intrinsic scientific value of proposed research, but also its instrumental value to society. Members of the scientific community have expressed – some more stridently than others – resistance to the use of such societal impact considerations. We sought to understand why. Results of the survey suggest that such resistance may be due to a lack of desire rather than a lack of confidence where judging impacts is concerned. In other words, it may be less that scientists feel unable to judge broader societal impacts and more that they are unwilling to do so.

Please refer to: Holbrook, J. Britt and Adam Briggle. 2013. “Knowing and acting: The precautionar... more Please refer to: Holbrook, J. Britt and Adam Briggle. 2013. “Knowing and acting: The precautionary and proactionary principles in relation to policy making.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2 (5): 15.

Editor’s Note: The following e-mail exchange on Holbrook and Briggle’s “Knowing and Acting” (published on the SERRC as a pre-print on 16 April 2013) took place from 20 to 22 March 2013. The participants are J. Britt Holbrook, Adam Briggle, Veronika Lipinska and Steve Fuller.

Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2 (5): 15, Apr 16, 2013

This essay explores the relationship between knowledge (in the form of scientific risk assessment... more This essay explores the relationship between knowledge (in the form of scientific risk assessment) and action (in the form of technological innovation) as they come together in policy, which itself is both a kind of knowing and acting. It first illustrates the dilemma of timely action in the face of uncertain unintended consequences. It then introduces the precautionary and proactionary principles as different alignments of knowledge and action within the policymaking process. The essay next considers a cynical and a hopeful reading of the role of these principles in public policy debates. We argue that the two principles, despite initial appearances, are not all that different when it comes to formulating public policy. We also suggest that principles in general can be used either to guide our actions, or to determine them for us. We argue that allowing principles to predetermine our actions undermines the sense of autonomy necessary for true action.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, a... more JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

To state the obvious, peer review is used in all sorts of contexts other than prepublication of j... more To state the obvious, peer review is used in all sorts of contexts other than prepublication of journal articles. The most common of these other contexts is the peer review of grant proposals for research funding. In this presentation, I consider whether altmetrics may be of help to proposers and reviewers in addressing what has become a divisive issue in the peer review of grant proposals: addressing and assessing the potential broader impacts of the proposed activities.

PERSPECTIVES terion into an advertisement for science and technology. One can hardly blame EPO pr... more PERSPECTIVES terion into an advertisement for science and technology. One can hardly blame EPO professionals for marketing themselves as experts who can help with issues of broader effects. Unfortunately, however, EPO professionals have now come to be viewed as the group uniquely qualified to help scientists confused about how to satisfy the broader impacts criterion.

Workshop conversations cluster under the four headings of the history and definitions, promotion,... more Workshop conversations cluster under the four headings of the history and definitions, promotion, evaluation, and integration of transformative research (TR): 1. History and Definitions: The National Science Board's 2007 report (NSB-07-32) on transformative research called for more effort directed at defining TR. The present report offers additional context and clarity regarding meanings of the term. But it also argues that there are virtues in leaving the term open to multiple interpretations. 2. Promotion: The report welcomes new mechanisms for promoting TR, such as NSF 'CREATIV' grants. It embraces additional means for promoting TR, such as increased emphasis on interdisciplinary research, and explores how different interpretations of how TR occurs imply different strategies for promoting TR. It also calls for increased attention to the broader societal impacts of TR at the levels of policy, of NSF programs, and of individual research projects. 3. Evaluation: The report emphasizes the need to develop means for evaluating attempts to promote TR. It also concludes that research should be directed toward evaluating transformative research at the project level. 4. Integration: The report suggests that consideration of the broader societal impacts of TR be fully integrated with transformative research itself. Attention to the broader impacts of TR should inform the development of policies and programs designed to promote TR, for instance through the creation of mechanisms such as an Advisory Committee for Transformative Research (ACTR).

In 2005, I published the first scholarly article on the US National Science Foundation’s Broader ... more In 2005, I published the first scholarly article on the US National Science Foundation’s Broader Impacts Merit Review Criterion. In the intervening years, much has happened, both in terms of scholarship on the Broader Impacts Criterion and in terms of the Broader Impacts Criterion itself. Here, I revisit that original article, answering some questions, filling in some blanks, expanding some bits, contracting others, updating and generally rethinking the whole thing. The National Science Board has also rethought the Broader Impacts Criterion, and 2011 marks the gestation, if not the birth, of a much different criterion, a sort of Broader Impacts 2.0. Now, then, seems like the perfect time to think once again about NSF’s Broader Impacts Criterion and about the dialectic between the values of autonomy and accountability in the science – society relation.

Vague impact criteria are a blessing in disguise. Researchers who push against criteria that allo... more Vague impact criteria are a blessing in disguise. Researchers who push against criteria that allow considerable autonomy are foolish and should learn from overseas contemporaries that a clearer definition of impact requirements is not dissimiliar from a tightening of the noose.

Describes changes in US NSF's merit review criteria. Argues that scientists are more likely to pr... more Describes changes in US NSF's merit review criteria. Argues that scientists are more likely to preserve their autonomy by embracing -- or 'owning' -- the new Broader Impacts Criterion rather than resisting it.

Social Epistemology, Jan 1, 2009

Science, Jan 1, 2011

Public science today finds itself caught between competing demands: Researchers need autonomy to ... more Public science today finds itself caught between competing demands: Researchers need autonomy to pursue questions wherever they lead, whereas funders demand that research meet societal needs. The National Science Foundation (NSF) offers a case study of the ...