Advertisement

Constructive Philosophy of Technology and Responsible Innovation

  • Philip Brey
Chapter
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 23)

Abstract

This essay argues for a new turn after the empirical turn in the philosophy of technology: the societal turn, which is the turn from reflective philosophy of technology (academic philosophy concerned with analysis and understanding) to constructive philosophy of technology (philosophy that is directly involved in solving practical problems in society). The essay aims to describe in detail what a constructive approach would look like and how it could be achieved. It claims that at least in the European Union, the conditions for a constructive philosophy of technology are favorable, due to the emergence in both policy and academics of the notion of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). It then goes on to describe how a constructive philosophy of technology can contribute to better technology development, better technology policy and better implementation and use of technology, through engineering-oriented, policy-oriented and use-oriented approaches to research.

Keywords

Constructive philosophy of technology Empirical turn Societal turn Responsible research and innovation 

References

  1. Brey, P. (1999). Worker autonomy and the drama of digital networks in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 22, 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brey, P. (2010a). Philosophy of technology after the empirical turn. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 14(1), 36–48.Google Scholar
  3. Brey, P. (2010b). Values in technology and disclosive computer ethics. In L. Floridi (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of information and computer ethics (pp. 41–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brey, P. (2012). Anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies. Nanoethics, 6(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Doorn, N. (2010). A procedural approach to distributing responsibilities in R&D networks. Poiesis & Praxis. International Journal of Technology Assessment and Ethics of Science, 7(3), 169–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edler, J., Kuhlmann, S., & Behrens, M. (Eds.). (2003). Changing governance of research and technology policy: The European research area. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  7. European Commission. (2010). Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, Brussels, COM(2010) 2020 final. Online at http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf
  8. European Commission. (2012). Responsible research and innovation. European Commission publications office. Online at http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/responsible-research-and-innovation-leaflet_en.pdf
  9. Feenberg, A. (1992). Subversive rationalization: Technology, power, and democracy. Inquiry, 35(3–4), 301–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Friedman, B., Kahn, P., & Borning, A. (2006). Value sensitive design and information systems. In P. Zhang & D. Galletta (Eds.), Human-computer interaction in management information systems: Foundations (pp. 348–372). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  11. Illies, C. F. R., & Meijers, A. (2014). Artefacts, agency and action schemes. In P. Kroes & P.-P. Verbeek (Eds.), The moral status of technical artefacts (pp. 159–184). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kroes, P., & Meijers, A. (2000). Introduction: A discipline in search of its identity. In P. Kroes & A. Meijers (Eds.), The empirical turn in the philosophy of technology (pp. xvii–xxxv). Amsterdam: JAI.Google Scholar
  13. Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 225–258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with ociety. Science and Public Policy, 39, 751–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Owen, R., Bessant, J., & Heintz, M. (Eds.). (2013). Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Skolimowski, H. (1966). The structure of thinking in technology. Technology and Culture, 7, 371–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Van de Poel, I., Royakkers, L., & Zwart, S. (2015). Moral responsibility and the problem of many hands. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Van den Hoven, J., & Manders-Huits, N. L. J. L. (2009). Value-sensitive design. In Blackwell companion to the philosophy of technology (pp. 477–480). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Van den Hoven, J., Doorn, N., Swierstra, T., Koops, B.-J., & Romijn, H. (Eds.). (2014). Responsible innovation 1: Innovative solutions for global issues. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Van der Burg, S., & Swierstra, T. (Eds.). (2013). Ethics on the laboratory floor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Vedder, A. (2001). Accountability of internet access and service providers – strict liability entering ethics? Ethics and Information Technology, 3(1), 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Verbeek, P.-P., & Slob, A. (Eds.). (2006). User behavior and technology development – Shaping sustainable relations between consumers and technologies. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Von Schomberg, R. (2012). Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In M. Dusseldorp & R. Beecroft (Eds.), Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden (pp. 39–61). Wiesbaden: Vs Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.Google Scholar
  25. Winner, L. (1995). Citizens virtues in a technological order. In A. Feenberg & A. Hannay (Eds.), Technology and the politics of knowledge (pp. 65–84). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wright, D. (2011). A framework for the ethical impact assessment of information technology. Ethics and Information Technology, 13(3), 199–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wright, D. (2014). Ethical impact assessment. In J. Britt Holbrook & C. Mitcham (Eds.), Ethics, science, technology and engineering: A global resource (2nd ed., pp. 163–167). Farmington Hills: Macmillan Reference.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations