In recent decades there has been an enduring call for STS research to offer practical value for those we study (Downey and Zuiderent-Jerak, 2017). This focus on societal impact raises questions about the value of knowledge production. Yet, it also produces new affordances to empower marginalized subjects and do good for society at large.   
STS has a rich history in interventionist research, building on calls to ‘move beyond criticism’ and actively influence the worlds we research for the better (Timmermans and Berg, 2003). Under the umbrella of ‘applied research’, distinct epistemological regimes and ‘sorting attachments’ (Jensen, 2007) of research reveal an increasing pressure to demonstrate immediate value. Such calls for practical value of social science have developed within a larger neoliberal trend, in which the university is increasingly reliant on external revenue and as a research and educational institute is governed by a logic of accountability and measurable outputs. The implications of this move towards practical relevance for scientific practice and its produced epistemologies have been well-documented for the natural and life sciences. However, far less attention has been given to the epistemological implications of interventionalist research for the social sciences. 
In this panel we encourage scholars to explore and theorize the increasing demand for applied approaches in social science research and how it impacts STS aims of interventionist research and knowledge production. We ask: what are the consequences of interventionist research for the epistemologies produced by STS scholars and what ‘modes of doing good’ does it produce?
Biography
Bal, R. and Mastboom, F., 2007. Engaging with technologies in practice: Travelling the northwest passage. Science as Culture, 16(3), pp.253-266.
Bruun Jensen, C., 2007. Sorting attachments: Usefulness of STS in healthcare practice and policy. Science as Culture, 16(3), pp.237-251.
Downey, G. L., and Zuiderent-Jerak, T., 2017. Making and doing: Engagement and reflexive learning in STS. In Felt, U., Fouché, R., Miller, C.A. and Smith-Doerr, L. (Eds), (2007) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies 4th edition, pp.223-250.
Hackett, E. J., 2014. Academic capitalism. Science, Technology, & Human Value, 39(5), pp.635-638.
Hoffman, S. G., 2017. Managing ambiguities at the edge of knowledge: Research strategy and artificial intelligence labs in an era of academic capitalism. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 42(4), pp.703-740.
Penkler, M., Felder, K. and Felt, U., 2020. Challenging Diversity: Steering Effects of Buzzwords in Projectified Health Care. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 45(1), pp.138-163.
Timmermans, S. and Berg, M., 2003. The practice of medical technology, Sociology of Health and Illness, 25, pp. 97–114.
Zuiderent-Jerak, T. and Bruun Jensen, C., 2007. Editorial introduction: Unpacking ‘intervention’ in science and technology studies. Science as Culture, 16(3), pp.227-235.