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
Briggle, Adam. 2018. “Philosopher’s Corner: Make Science Great Again,” Issues in Science and Technology.
Briggle, Adam. 2018. “The Great Impacts Houdini,” Journal of Responsible Innovation.
Frodeman, Robert. 2017. “The Impact Agenda and the Search for a Good Life,” Palgrave Communications.
Frodeman, Robert. 2017. “Philosopher’s Corner: The End of Puzzle Solving,” Issues in Science and Technology.
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
Workshop: The Future of Public Philosophy
May 30 & 31, 2018
World Resources Institute at 10G Street NE, 8th floor
How do we build structures, create opportunities, and identify resources to support next-generation philosophy and next-generation philosophers?
Imagine a ten year-old girl in 2018. She goes to high school and college, and she falls in love with philosophy. She also has a passion for social justice. Her professor spots her potential for publicly-engaged philosophy and tells her about PPN because it is visible and well-respected. She gets a PPN Young Scholar’s grant to support her summer research project. As an undergraduate, she attends a PPN-sponsored neighborhood restoration project in her home town. Then in graduate school she utilizes PPN web resources to find an internship that builds her skills and professional network.
As a graduate student, she gives a talk at the annual PPN conference, connecting with hundreds of like-minded people (conference attendance = 300). She lands a job – perhaps in the academy, perhaps outside of it – and becomes a valued member of her community. People know her as a public philosopher – the way we might know someone as a lawyer – and they think nothing of it, as it is a normal and necessary vocation. They naturally think, of course we need philosophers involved with public issues. They are philosophical issues after all!
Wednesday, May 30
Dinner @tbd, 7pm. Opening remarks: Noelle McAfee and Andrew Light.
Thursday, May 31
9am. The Public Philosophy Network. Discussion facilitator: Bob Frodeman
Survey of agenda, review of PPN2018, and reconstituting PPN: questions of organizational structure, membership, funding, and goals.
10:30am. Activities to Promote Public Philosophy. Discussion facilitator: Adam Briggle
Conferences and auxiliary activities across the scope of public philosophy: Graduate training workshop, Environmental scan, Edited volumes, Grant applications, Other possibilities?
1pm. Conference Planning. Discussion facilitators: Matt McKeon, Paul Thompson
Summary of morning. Planning the next conference: Date, location, and leadership.
2:30pm. Outreach and Allies. Discussion facilitator: Evelyn Brister
Publishing and outreach arms of PPN: Relationship with APA, PPJ, the website, other organizations and outlets?
4pm: Wrap up. Adam Briggle.
Review action items, discuss next steps, and a potential second planning meeting.
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.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Location: Conference Center at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
1779 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC – Google Map
Coffee and bites
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
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
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?
2:15 pm – 2:45 pm
Discussion of Theme 3
2:45 pm – 3:00 pm
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.
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.
- Susannah Paletz, Learning Research & Development Center, University of Pittsburgh
- Laurel Smith-Doerr, Sociology, Boston University
Program officers involved in support:
- Julia Lane (National Science Foundation, Science of Science and Innovation Policy)
- Michael Gorman (National Science Foundation, Science, Technology and Society)
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.