Publications and Workshops

Books

Frodeman, Robert, et al. eds. 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. 2nd. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Frodeman, Robert, and Adam Briggle. 2016. Socrates Tenured: The Institutions of 21st Century Philosophy. London: Rowman & Littlefield.

Briggle, Adam. 2015. A Field Philosopher’s Guide to Fracking. New York: Liveright.

Frodeman, Robert. 2014. Sustainable Knowledge: A Theory of Interdisciplinarity. London: Palgrave.

Briggle, Adam. 2010. A Rich Bioethics: Public Policy, Biotechnology, and the Kass Council. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Frodeman, Robert. 2003. Geo-Logic: Breaking Ground Between Philosophy and the Earth Sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Articles and Chapters

Frodeman, Robert. 2017. “The Impact Agenda and the Search for a Good Life,” Palgrave Communications.

Frodeman, Robert, and Adam Briggle. 2016. “When Philosophy Lost its Way,” New York Times.

Briggle, Adam, and Robert Frodeman. 2016. “The Institution of Philosophy: Escaping Disciplinary Capture,” Metaphilosophy.

Briggle, Adam. 2016. “The Policy Turn in Philosophy of Technology,” in Philosophy of Technology after the Empirical Turn, Maarten Franssen et al., eds.

Briggle, Adam, Robert Frodeman, and J. Britt Holbrook. 2015. “The Impact of Philosophy and the Philosophy of Impact,” LSE Impact Blog.

Frodeman, Robert. 2015. “On the Impact of ‘Impact’,” Sociological Review.

Briggle, Adam, Robert Frodeman, and Kelli Barr. 2015. “Achieving Escape Velocity: Breaking Free from the Impact Failure of Applied Philosophy,” LSE Impact Blog.

Frodeman, Robert, and Adam Briggle. 2015. “Socrates Untenured,” Inside Higher Ed.

Briggle, Adam, and Robert Frodeman. 2014. “Wanted: A Future for Philosophy,” Chronicle of Higher Education.

Briggle, Adam. 2014. “Opening the Black Box: The Social Outcomes of Scientific Research,” Social Epistemology.

Frodeman, Robert, Adam Briggle, and J. Britt Holbrook. 2012. “Philosophy in the Age of Neoliberalism,” Social Epistemology.

Frodeman, Robert, and Adam Briggle. 2012. “The Dedisciplining of Peer Review,” Minerva.

Holbrook, J. Britt, and Robert Frodeman. 2011. “Peer Review and the ex ante Assessment of Societal Impacts,” Research Evaluation.

Briggle, Adam, and Robert Frodeman. 2011. “A New Philosophy for the 21st Century,” Chronicle of Higher Education.

Frodeman, Robert. 2010. “Experiments in Field Philosophy,” New York Times.

Frodeman, Robert. 2008. “Philosophy Unbound: Environmental Thinking at the End of the Earth,” Environmental Ethics.

Briggle, Adam, Robert Frodeman, and J. Britt Holbrook. 2006. “Introducing a Policy Turn in Environmental Philosophy,” Environmental Philosophy.

Workshops and Conferences

  1. Public Philosophy Network Conference 2018

Conference Theme: The Impacts of Philosophy and the Philosophy of Impacts

Feb 8-10, 2018

Boulder, CO – Hosted by the University of North Texas

Co-Directors: Adam Briggle and Robert Frodeman, Department of Philosophy and Religion, University of North Texas

Schedule at a Glance

Thursday February 8th 

5:00 p.m. Wine and nibbles

6:00 p.m. Conference Introduction – Robert Frodeman, University of North Texas

6:15-7:30 p.m. Opening Keynote Panel: Public Philosophy — Reports from the Field

Andrew Light, George Mason University and World Resources Institute
Noelle McAfee, Emory University
Adam Briggle, University of North Texas


Friday February 9th 

9:00-10:00 a.m. Morning Plenary: Imagining a World Where Philosophy Mattered

Daniel Sarewitz, Arizona State University

10:15 a.m.-12:15 p.m. Workshop Session #1

12:15 p.m. Lunch at the hotel

1:15-2:45 p.m. Paper Session #1

3:00-4:15 p.m. Afternoon Plenary: Reaching the Public

Olivia Goldhill, Quartz
Peter Catapano, New York Times
Justin Weinberg, Daily Nous

4:15-5:45 p.m. Paper Session #2


Saturday February 10th 

9:00-10:00 a.m. Morning Plenary: Public Conversations about Controversial Topics

Evelyn Brister, Rochester Institute of Technology — Moderator
Rebecca Tuvel, Rhodes College
Lee McBride, The College of Wooster
Georgia Warnke, UC Riverside

10:15 a.m.-12:15 p.m. Workshop Session #2

12:15 p.m. Lunch at the hotel

1:15-2:45 p.m. Paper Session #3

3:00-4:15 p.m. Afternoon Plenary: International Perspectives on Public Philosophy

David Budtz Pedersen, Aalborg University — Moderator
David Budtz Pedersen, Aalborg Universit
Tom Børsen, Aalborg University
Frederik Stjernfelt, Aalborg University
Rolf Hvidtfeldt, Aalborg University
Joachim Schmidt Wiewiura, University of Copenhagen

4:15-5:00 p.m. The Future of PPN (All are welcome and encouraged to attend)

__________________________________________________

     2. Evaluating broader impacts: The state of the art
Feb 10 & 11, 2016

This workshop met at the Conference Center in the Carnegie Endowment, Washington, DC, as part of our on-going research. Our NSF proposal states the overall mission of this grant:

To improve our theoretical understanding of the different ways that the broader impacts of science can be evaluated…

__________________________________________________

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

6pm: dinner with overview of the workshop by Robert Frodeman.

Location: The Regent, Thai Cuisine
1910 18th Street, N.W., Washington DC 20009 – Google Map

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Location: Conference Center at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
1779 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC  –  Google Map

8:15 am
Coffee and bites

8:45 am
Introduction to the day’s work
Robert Frodeman & J. Britt Holbrook

-Presentation on the theme by each speaker at 6 minutes each
-each presentation also receives 6 minutes for discussion
-30 minute group discussion of the theme as a whole

9:00 am – 10:00 am
Theme 1: Defining and Measuring Broader Impacts

How are, could, and should broader impacts be defined and assessed? What is the state of the art in the UK and Europe?  What is the difference between ‘research impact’ and ‘broader impact’? What sorts of behaviors do different definitions and measures of impact encourage? 

Claire Donovan, Brunel |  View Presentation and Text
Diana Hicks, Georgia Tech  |  View Presentation
Mike Taylor, Elsevier
 |  View Presentation
Stacy Konkiel, Altmetrics
J. Britt Holbrook, New Jersey Institute of Technology  |  View Presentation

10:00 am – 10:30am
Discussion of Theme 1

10:30 – 10:45am
Break

10:45 am – 12:00 pm
Theme 2: Broader Impacts, Disciplines, and the University

What is the relationship between broader impacts and academic disciplines? Do broader impacts concerns imply a new structure for universities? What role should academic peers have in defining and assessing broader impacts? Might an increasing reliance on metrics, or on including stakeholder coproduction and/or evaluation, undermine the role of academic expertise? 

Steven Hill, HEFCE
Robert Frodeman University of North Texas  |  View Presentation
Jack Spaapen, KNAW  |  View Presentation
David Budtz Pederson, Univ of Copenhagen  |  View Presentation
Dave Guston, ASU
Juan Rogers, Georgia Tech
 |  View Presentation

12:00 pm – 12:30 pm
Discussion of Theme 2

12:30 pm – 1:15 pm
Lunch
Firehook Bakery delivered to conference room

1:15 pm – 2:15 pm
Theme 3: The Politics and Ethics of Impact

What effects do broader societal impact requirements have on researchers and the research system? What are the next steps in building more responsible uses of metrics and indicators for broader impacts? How are metrics for broader impact related to responsible research and innovation? Can impact be planned? Who’s counting what counts as broader impact? What of negative impacts or grimpacts?

James Wilsdon, U of Sheffield
Rene von Schomberg, European Commission
Steve Fuller, U of Warwick
Andy Stirling, SPRU
Catriona Manville, RAND Europe

2:15 pm – 2:45 pm
Discussion of Theme 3

2:45 pm – 3:00 pm
Break

3:00 pm – 4:15pm
Theme 4: The Future of Impact

Will impact requirements at ‘higher’ levels (national research evaluation processes, funding agencies, etc.) affect universities, disciplines, or academic departments in terms of the reward system? How? Will researchers embrace broader impacts? Should they? What can the US learn from the UK/European experience? And where is this discussion headed?

Roberto Pacheco, CAPES and UFSC Brazil  |  View Presentation
Yuko Harayama, Council for Science and Technology Policy, Japan
Dan Sarewitz, ASU
Luke Georghiou, U of Manchester |  View Presentation
Adam Briggle, UNT

4:15 pm – 4:45 pm
Discussion of Theme 4

4:45 pm – 5:00 pm
Wrap-up and Recollection
Robert Frodeman and J. Britt Holbrook

___________________________________________________

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 1353796 & 1445121. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

___________________________________________________

  3. Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Innovative Science & Engineering

November 4-5, 2010
Location: Boston University
Download the Report. Funding provided by NSF collaborative grant to S.Paletz and  L.Smith-Doerr, NSF collaborative grant (#10477728/1047773). All  conclusions and opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Science Foundation.

GOALS

The main goals of this workshop are to: (1) discuss the potential for a shared vocabulary across the different fields that study interdisciplinarity and related issues, (2) elaborate on specific similarities and differences in theory, data, and methods, (3) classify gaps and important future directions in the study of interdisciplinarity, and (4) identify specific infrastructure changes that would enable the study of multi- and interdisciplinary collaboration.

Organizers

Program officers involved in support:

_____________________________________________________

 

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. SBE-1047728. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.