↓ Skip to main content

Scientists’ Understandings of Risk of Nanomaterials: Disciplinary Culture Through the Ethnographic Lens

Overview of attention for article published in NanoEthics, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Scientists’ Understandings of Risk of Nanomaterials: Disciplinary Culture Through the Ethnographic Lens
Published in
NanoEthics, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11569-017-0297-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mikael Johansson, Åsa Boholm

Abstract

There is a growing literature on how scientific experts understand risk of technology related to their disciplinary field. Previous research shows that experts have different understandings and perspectives depending on disciplinary culture, organizational affiliation, and how they more broadly look upon their role in society. From a practice-based perspective on risk management as a bottom-up activity embedded in work place routines and everyday interactions, we look, through an ethnographic lens, at the laboratory life of nanoscientists. In the USA and Sweden, two categories of nanoscientists have been studied: upstream scientists who are mainly electrical and physical engineers and downstream scientists who are toxicologists, often with a more multidisciplinary background, including physics, chemistry, biology, and engineering. The results show that although the two groups of scientists share the same norms of appropriate laboratory conduct to promote safety and good science practice, they have very different perspectives on risk with nanomaterials. Upstream scientists downplay risk; they emphasize the innovative potential of the new materials to which they express an affectionate and personalized stance. The downstream scientists, instead, focus on the uncertainties and unpredictability of nanomaterials and they see some materials as potentially highly dangerous. The results highlight the ambiguous and complex role of scientific experts in policy processes about the risk and regulation of nanotechnology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Master 6 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 6 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 14%
Chemistry 3 8%
Environmental Science 3 8%
Engineering 3 8%
Other 9 24%
Unknown 8 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 November 2017.
All research outputs
#15,330,390
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from NanoEthics
#149
of 244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,042
of 318,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NanoEthics
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 244 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,447 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.