Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mandates and Methods for Early Engagement

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory

Part of the book series: Philosophy of Engineering and Technology ((POET,volume 16))

Abstract

This introduction to the volume “Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory” sets out how recent policy developments have demonstrated a growing interest in early engagement with technology, and identifies the various ways in which scholars from the social sciences and humanities have responded to these policies. The five main approaches elaborated in this volume are introduced: Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA), Value Sensitive Design (VSD), Socio-Technical Integration Research (STIR), Network Approach for Moral Evaluation (NAME), and Political Technology Assessment (PTA). A range of broader issues related to technology engagement is identified and an outline of the volume chapters is presented.

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
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

References

  • Berloznik, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (1998). Integration of technology assessment in R&D management practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 58, 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatti, Y. A., Khilji, S. E., & Basu, R. (2013). Frugal innovation. In S. Khilji & C. Rowley (Eds.), Globalization, change and learning in South Asia. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvert, J., & Martin, P. (2009). The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO Reports, 10, 201–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, B. R., & Sanford, J. A. (1999). Research implications of universal design. In E. Steinfeld & G. S. Danford (Eds.), Enabling environments: Measuring the impact of environment on disability and rehabilitation. New York: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Consoli, L. (2008). The intertwining of ethics and methodology in science and engineering: A virtue-ethical approach. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 33, 234–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doorn, N. (2012). Exploring responsibility rationales in research and development (R&D). Science, Technology & Human Values, 37, 180–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doubleday, R. (2007). The laboratory revisited: Academic science and the responsible governance of nanotechnology. NanoEthics, 1, 167–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2007). Work programme 2007, capacities, part 5, Science in society, C(2007) 563. Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E. (2007). Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics, 1, 155–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E. (2011). Editorial overview: Public science and technology scholars: Engaging whom? Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 607–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. L. (2006). Midstream modulation of nanotechnology research in an academic laboratory. In ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (IMECE2006) Nov 5–10, 2006, Chicago, Ill, USA (pp. 1–7).

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, B., & Kahn, P. H., Jr. (2003). Human values, ethics and design. In J. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, M. E., Groves, J. F., & Shrager, J. (2004). Societal dimensions of nanotechnology as a trading zone: Results from a pilot project. In D. Baird, A. Nordmann, & J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering at the nanoscale (pp. 63–73). Amsterdam: IOS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24, 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Berverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitcham, C. (2003). Co-responsibility for research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9, 273–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nieusma, D. (2004). Alternative design scholarship: Working towards appropriate design. Design Issues, 20(3), 13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NWO. (2008). Responsible innovation: Description of thematic programme. The Hague: Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D. K. R. (2009). Co-evolutionary scenarios: An application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76, 1222–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D. (2005). This won’t hurt a bit: Assessing and governing rapidly advancing technologies in a democracy. In M. Rodemeyer, D. Sarewitz, & J. Wilsdon (Eds.), The future of technology assessment (pp. 14–21). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schot, J. W., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54, 251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuurbiers, D. (2011). What happens in the lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 769–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegmaier, P. (2009). The rock‘n’roll of knowledge co-production; Science and society series on convergence research. EMBO Reports, 10, 114–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, E. (2012). Nanotechnology and the products of inherited regulation. Journal of Law and Society, 39, 93–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Poel, I. R., & Van Gorp, A. C. (2006). The need for ethical reflection in engineering design: The relevance of type of design and design hierarchy. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31, 333–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Poel, I. R., & Zwart, S. D. (2010). Reflective equilibrium in R&D networks. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35, 174–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Burg, S. (2009). Imagining the future of photoacoustic mammography. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, 97–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, D., Lake, M., Nilsen, T., Utter, M. E., Alsdorf, R., Bizimana, T., Nathan, L. P., Ring, M., Utter, E. J., Utter, R. F., & Friedman, B. (2013). Envisioning across generations: A multi-lifespan information system for international justice in Rwanda. In Proceedings of CHI 2013. New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. M. (1998). Why must scientists become more ethically sensitive than they used to be? Science, 282, 1813–1814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwart, S. D., Van de Poel, I. R., Van Mil, H., & Brumsen, M. (2006). A network approach for distinguishing ethical issues in research and development. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 663–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. De Proeffabriek (The Pilot Plant), Lookwatering 36, 2614 KA, Delft, The Netherlands

    Daan Schuurbiers

  2. Department of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, 5015, 2600 GA, Delft, The Netherlands

    Neelke Doorn & Ibo van de Poel

  3. Department of Science, Technology & Society, University of Virginia, 351 McCormick Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22904-4744, USA

    Michael E. Gorman

Authors
  1. Daan Schuurbiers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Neelke Doorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ibo van de Poel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael E. Gorman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daan Schuurbiers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands

    Neelke Doorn

  2. De Proeffabriek (The Pilot Plant), Delft, Gelderland, The Netherlands

    Daan Schuurbiers

  3. Department of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Ibo van de Poel

  4. Department of Science, Technology and Society, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA

    Michael E. Gorman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schuurbiers, D., Doorn, N., van de Poel, I., Gorman, M.E. (2013). Mandates and Methods for Early Engagement. In: Doorn, N., Schuurbiers, D., van de Poel, I., Gorman, M. (eds) Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 16. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation