Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Person
Browse By Room
Browse By Research Area
Browse By Session Type
Search Tips
Meeting Home Page
Personal Schedule
Sign In
The call draws attention to the power of language, concepts, and discourse “in defining, framing, and shaping not only STI policy, but also the identities, interests, agency and actions of STI policy actors.” With respect to this “complex interplay among STI policy, science and society” we raise two connected methodological questions. First, when moving from an analysis centered on individual concepts to more complex landscapes of multiple and interconnected concepts, how do we decide whether two (or more) concepts should be treated together or separate? Second, the power of conceptual language lies in its performativity, in that policy “talk” produces identities, interests, agency, action, and infrastructure, i.e. socio-materialities. How, then, do we capture this ontological malleability of concepts; especially when concepts travel through social time and space?
We illustrate the productivity of these questions by comparing analytical approaches (“essentially contested concepts”, “boundary objects”, “travelling concepts”, etc.) and by using “translational research” as one current example of STI policy language in the context of biomedicine. To move knowledge “from bench to bedside” or to bridge the “valley of death”, translation has informed diverse policy driven measures such as replication initiatives, professional training, research infrastructures or funding programs. Regarding our first methodological question, we ask how translation is separate from earlier concepts (“evidence-based medicine”) and how it is part of larger concepts (“societal impact”). Regarding the second question, we ask how translation informs and produces “translational identities” (clinical scientists) or “translational organizations” (Harvard Catalyst).