Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating Emerging ICTs: A Critical Capability Approach of Technology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Capability Approach, Technology and Design

Part of the book series: Philosophy of Engineering and Technology ((POET,volume 5))

Abstract

The present chapter sets out to provide a theoretical basis for evaluating the social implications of emerging ICTs, whose uses and consequences are often ambiguous and contradictory. Drawing on two distinct but related bodies of theory, namely the capability approach and critical social theory in information systems, the chapter proposes the Critical Capability Approach of Technology (CCAT). This approach to evaluation will be useful for policy makers, technology designers and developers, and consumers who have to consider the social consequences of technologies. The CCAT is applied to explore the possible implications of three examples of emerging ICTs: affective computing, ambient intelligence, and neuro-electronics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Interpretive flexibility stands for the view that technology is not objectively given but is socially constituted through perception and use. This means that a particular technical artefact may have different means and uses in different contexts (Doherty et al. 2006). There are different views on whether this refers to the nature of technology per se or only to its perceptions (Cadili and Whitley 2005). For this purpose these distinctions are not of central importance because both positions are compatible with a critical perspective.

  2. 2.

    The ETICA project (http://www.etica-project.eu/) is funded by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 230318.

References

  • Arnold, M. (2003). On the phenomenology of technology: The “Janus-faces” of mobile phones. Information and Organization, 13(4), 231–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brey, P. (2000). Disclosive computer ethics: Exposure and evaluation of embedded normativity in computer technology. CEPE2000 Computer Ethics: Philosophical Enquiry. Presented at the CEPE2000 Computer Ethics: Philosophical Enquiry, Dartmouth College, Hanover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brey, P. (2008). The technological construction of social power. Social Epistemology, 22(1), 71–95. doi:10.1080/02691720701773551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (2010). Human dignity and human rights: Thoughts on the principles of human-centered design. Design Issues, 17(3), 35–39. doi:10.1162/074793601750357178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadili, S., & Whitley, E. A. (2005). On the interpretative flexibility of hosted ERP systems. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 14(2), 167–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge, D. (1981). The social control of technology. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, D. A. (2008). Ethics of global development: Agency, capability, and deliberative democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Decker, M., & Ladikas, M. (Eds.). (2004). Bridges between science, society and policy: Technology assessment – methods and impacts. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deneulin, S. (2006). “Necessary thickening”: Ricoeur’s ethic of justice as a complement to Sen’s capability approach. In S. Deneulin, M. Nebel, & N. Sagovsky (Eds.), Transforming unjust structures: The capability approach. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, N. F., Coombs, C. R., & Loan-Clarke, J. (2006). A re-conceptualization of the interpretive flexibility of information technologies: Redressing the balance between the social and the technical. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(6), 569–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2006, November 24–25). From science and society to science in society: Towards a framework for ‘co-operative research’ – Report of a European Commission Workshop. Governance and Scientific Advice Unit of DG RTD, Directorate C2. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/goverscience_final_report_en.pdf

  • European Commission. (2009). Preparing Europe for a new renaissance – A strategic view of the European Research Area – First Report of the European Research Area Board. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/erab/publications_en.html

  • European Commission. (2010). COM(2010) 2020: Europe 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/

  • Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1980). In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings (1972–1977). London: Harvester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genus, A., & Coles, A. (2005). On constructive technology assessment and limitations on public participation in technology assessment. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 17(4), 433–443. doi:10.1080/09537320500357251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, A. (2009). Technology assessment: Concept and methods. In D. M. Gabbay, A. W. M. Meijers, J. Woods, & P. Thagard (Eds.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (Vol. 9, pp. 1103–1146). Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim, R. A., Heinz, K. K., & Kalle L. (1995). Information systems development and data modeling: Conceptual and philosophical foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Introna, L. D. (2005). Disclosive ethics and information technology: Disclosing facial recognition systems. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kjolberg, K. L., & Strand, R. (2011). Conversations about responsible nanoresearch. NanoEthics, 5(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kothari, U. (2001). Power, knowledge and social control in participatory development. In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny? (pp. 139–152). London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAulay, L., Doherty, N., & Keval, N. (2002). The stakeholder dimension in information systems evaluation. Journal of Information Technology, 17(4), 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ngwenyama, O. K., & Lee, A. S. (1997). Communication richness in electronic mail: Critical social theory and the contextuality of meaning. MIS Quarterly, 21(2), 145–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oosterlaken, I. (2009). Design for development: A capability approach. Design Issues, 25(4), 91–102. doi:10.1162/desi.2009.25.4.91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, R., & Goldberg, N. (2010). Responsible innovation: A pilot study with the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 30(11), 1699–1707. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01517.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peter, F. (2003). Gender and the foundations of social choice: The role of situated agency. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 13–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robeyns, I. (2006). The capability approach in practice. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 4(3), 351–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saravanamuthu, K. (2002). Information technology and ideology. Journal of Information Technology, 17, 79–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1985). Well-being, agency and freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984. The Journal of Philosophy, LXXXII(4), 169–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In The quality of life. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, B. (2008a). Information systems: Critical perspectives (Routledge Studies in Organisation and Systems). New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, B. C. (2008b). Forensic computing in the workplace: Hegemony, ideology, and the perfect panopticon? Journal of Workplace Rights, 13(2), 167–183. doi:10.2190/WR.13.2.e.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tao, J., & Tan, T. (2005). Affective computing: A review. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3784, 981–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Hoven, J. (2008). Moral methodology and information technology. In K. Himma & H. Tavani (Eds.), The handbook of information and computer ethics (pp. 49–68). Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, Y. (2009). Different spaces for e-development: What can we learn from the capability approach. Information Technology for Development, 15(2), 66–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, Y., & Stahl, B. C. (2011). Technology, capabilities and critical perspectives: What can critical theory contribute to Sen’s capability approach? Ethics and Information Technology. doi:10.1007/s10676-011-9264-8.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Royal Holloway, University of London, Surrey, UK

    Yingqin Zheng

  2. Faculty of Technology, Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK

    Bernd Carsten Stahl

Authors
  1. Yingqin Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bernd Carsten Stahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yingqin Zheng .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Philosophy section, Faculty of TPM, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, Delft, 2628 BX, Netherlands

    Ilse Oosterlaken

  2. , Philosophy section, Faculty of TPM, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, Delft, 2628 BX, Netherlands

    Jeroen van den Hoven

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zheng, Y., Stahl, B.C. (2012). Evaluating Emerging ICTs: A Critical Capability Approach of Technology. In: Oosterlaken, I., van den Hoven, J. (eds) The Capability Approach, Technology and Design. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3879-9_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation