Opening Up Ethical Dialogue

  • Matthew Cotton
Part of the Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics book series (SAPERE, volume 13)


In the previous chapter I outlined the decision framework for a reflective ethical mapping (REM) procedure based upon the Rawlsian concept of reflective equilibrium. The following two chapters ‘operationalise’ this decision framework by outlining a series of practical deliberative methods that can structure and facilitate this type of coherentist ethical reflection in a group setting. Each of the methods presented in these chapters is proposed for the context of a deliberative workshop – a series of small group discussion activities run with a small number of participants over one or two days. The choice of participants is of course context specific, and these methods can potentially be adapted for both expert and non-expert use. The methods proposed are, however, principally designed with the non-expert public stakeholder in mind. I have argued that this group of stakeholders must be engaged with on these issues in order to avoid the technocratic decision-making based solely upon the voice of experts (in this case perhaps philosophers rather than engineers or scientists), and to ensure strong deliberative democratic control of socially and ethically contentious technologies (SECT).


Waste Management International Atomic Energy Agency Radioactive Waste Nuclear Waste Engagement Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alexander, I.F.: A Taxonomy of Stakeholders: Human Roles in System Development. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction 1(1), 23–59 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, J.R., Byrne, M.D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., Qin, Y.: An Integrated Theory of the Mind. Psychological Review 111(4), 1036–1050 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrén, M.: Nuclear Waste Management and Legitimacy: Nihilism and Responsibility. Routledge, Abingdon (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atherton, E., Poole, M.: The Problem of the UK’s Radioactive Waste: What Have We Learnt? Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 26, 296–302 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ausubel, D.P., Novak, J.D., Hanesian, H.: Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, 2nd Aufl. Rinehart and Winston, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Avons, S.E., Phillips, W.A.: Representation of matrix patterns in long- and short term visual memory. Acta Psychologica 65, 227–246 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beck, U.: Risk Society: Toward a New Modernity. Sage, London (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    BGS. Managing Waste Safely: Initial Geolgical Unsuitability Screening of West Cumbria. British Geological Survey, Nottingham (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bickerstaff, K., Lorenzoni, I., Pidgeon, N.F., Poortinga, W., Simmons, P.: Reframing Nuclear Power in the UK Energy Debate: Nuclear Power, Climate Change Mitigation and Radioactive Waste. Public Understanding of Science 17, 145–169 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blowers, A.: Why dump on us? Power, pragmatism and the periphery in the siting of new nuclear reactors in the UK. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 7(3), 157–173 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blowers, A., Lowry, D., Solomon, B.D.: The International Politics of Nuclear Waste. MacMillan, London (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blowers, A.: Ethics and Decision Making for Radioactive Waste. Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, London (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blowers, A., Pepper, D.: The Politics of Nuclear Power and Radioactive Waste Disposal: From State Coercion to Procedural Justice? Political Geography Quarterly 7(3), 291–298 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blowers, A., Sundqvist, G.: Radioactive waste management - technocratic dominance in an age of participation. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 7(3), 149–155 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bull, R., Petts, J., Evans, J.: Social learning from public engagement: dreaming the impossible? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51(5), 701–716 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burgess, J., Chilvers, J., Clark, J., Day, R., Hunt, J., King, S., Simmons, P., Stirling, A.: Citizens’ and Specialists’ Deliberate Options for Mapping the UK’s Legacy Intermediate and High Level Radioactive Waste: A Report of the Deliberative Mapping Trial. CoRWM PSE Working Group (June-July 2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Buzan, T.: The Mind Map Book: Radiant Thinking - Major Evolution in Human Thought. BBC Active, London (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carter, L.J.: Nuclear Imperatives and Public Trust: Dealing with Radioactive Waste. Resources for the Future, Danvers (1989)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chilvers, J., Burgess, J., Murlis, J.: Securing Public Confidence in Radioactive Waste Management: Developing a Vision for a Process and Stakeholder Engagement. University College London, London (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Coakes, E., Elliman, T.: Focus issue on legacy information systems and business process engineering: the role of stakeholders in managing change. Communications of the AIS 2(1), Article 2 (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Collier, D.: CoRWM Final Evaluation Statement. Faulkland Associates, Oxford (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    CoRWM. Guiding Principles (2004) (accessed November 11, 2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    CoRWM (2005), Why we need to consult, (accessed July 1, 2012)
  24. 24.
    CoRWM, Managing our Radioactive Waste Safely: CoRWM’s recommendations to Government. Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, London (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cotton, M.: Ethical assessment in radioactive waste management: a proposed reflective equilibrium-based deliberative approach. Journal of Risk Research 12(5), 603–618 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cotton, M.: Industry and stakeholder perspectives on the social and ethical aspects of radioactive waste management options. Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies 11(1), 8–26 (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    de Bono, E.: Six Thinking Hats. Palgrave, London (1985)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    DEFRA, Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: Proposals for Developing a Policy for Managing Radioactive Waste in the UK: Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, The National Assembly for Wales, and the Scottish Executive (2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    DEFRA, Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A framework for implementing geological disposal. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Department for Trade and Industry and the Welsh and Northern Irish devolved administrations (2007)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Delbecq, A.L., Van-de-Ven, A.H., Gustafson, D.H.: Group Techniques for Program Planning. Scott Foresman and Company, Glenview (1975)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Delbecq, A.L., VandeVen, A.H.: A group process model for problem identification and program planning. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 7, 466–491 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Douglas, M.: Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences. Sage, London (1986)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dunlap, R.E., Rosa, E.A., Baxter, R.K., Mitchell, R.C.: Local Attitudes Toward Siting a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository at Hanford, Washington. In: Dunlap, R.E., Kraft, M.E., Rosa, E.A. (eds.) Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste: Citizens’ Views of Repository Siting. Duke University Press, London (1993)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Flüeler, T.: Tools for local stakeholder in radioactive waste governance: Challenges and benefits of selected Participatory Technology Assessment techniques. Institute of Human-Environment Systems, Zurich (2005)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Flüeler, T.: Decision making for complex socio-technical systems: robustness from lessons learned in long term radioactive waste governance. Springer, Dordrecht (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Flüeler, T., Scholz, R.W.: Socio-technical knowledge for robust decision making in radioactive waste management. Risk, Decision and Policy 9(2), 129–159 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Flynn, J.H., Slovic, P., Mertz, C.K., Toma, J.: Evaluations of Yucca Mountain: Survey findings about attitudes, opinions, and evaluations of nuclear waste disposal and Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office, Nevada (1990)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Freudenberg, W.R.: Can we learn from failure? Examining US experiences with nuclear repository siting. Journal of Risk Research 7(2), 153–169 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gemmell, C.: Long-term Radioactive Waste Management - Public & Stakeholder Engagement Consultation Document. Scottish Environment Protection Agency, CoRWM, London (2005)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gregory, S., Satterfield, T.: Beyond Perception: The Experience of Risk and Stigma in Community Contexts. Risk Analysis 22(2), 347–358 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Grimstone, M.: Ethical and Environmental Principles: A Review of the Influence of Ethical and Environmental Considerations in the Formulation and Implementation of Radioactive Waste Management Policy. CoRWM, London (2004)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gunderson, W.C.: Voluntarism and its limits: Canada’s search for radioactive waste-siting candidates. Canadian Public Administration 42(2), 193–214 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hare, M.P., Pahl-Wostl, C.: Stakeholder categorisation in participatory integrated assessment processes. Integrated Assessment 3, 50–62 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hodgson, A.M.: Hexagons for systems thinking. In: Morecroft, J.D.W., Sterman, J.D. (eds.) Modelling for Learning Organisations. Productivity Press, Portland (1994)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hodgson, A.M.: Hexagons for Systems Thinking. European Journal of Operational Research 59(1), 220–230 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    IAEA, Ethical Considerations in Protecting the Environment from the Effects of Ionizing Radiation: A Report for Discussion (2002)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kaner, S., Lind, L., Toldi, C., Fisk, S., Berger, D.: Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-making. Community at Work, San Fransisco (2007)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kemp, R.: The Politics of Radioactive Waste Disposal. Manchester University Press, Manchester (1992)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kemp, R., O’Riordan, T., Purdue, M.: Environmental Politics in the 1980s: The Public Examination of Radioactive Waste Disposal. Policy and Politics 14, 9–25 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kikuchi, T.: Temporal characteristics of visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 13, 464–477 (1987)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Latour, B.: We have never been modern. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead (1993)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Latour, B.: La science en action: introduction à la sociologie des sciences (Science in action: introduction to the sociology of science). Gallimard, Paris (1995)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Law, J., Hassard, J.: Actor Network Theory and After. Blackwell, Oxford (1999)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lidskog, A., Litmanen, T.: The Social Shaping of Radwaste Management: the Case of Sweden and Finland. Current Sociology 45(8), 59–79 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Litemanen, T.: Environmental Conflict as Social Construction: Nuclear Waste Conflict in Finland. Society and Natural Resources 9, 523–535 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mackerron, G., Berkhout, F.: Learning to listen: institutional change and legitimation in UK radioactive waste policy. Journal of Risk Research 12(7-8), 989–1008 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Marshall, A.: The Social and Ethical Aspects of Nuclear Waste. Electronic Green Journal (21), 1–22 (2005)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    McCutcheon, C.: Nuclear Reactions: The Politics of Opening a Radioactive Waste Disposal Site. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque (2002)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Miller, G.A.: The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two; Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. Psychological Review 63, 81–87 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    NEA, OECD, The Environmental and Ethical Basis of Geological Disposal: A Collective Opinion of the Radioactive Waste Management Committee of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris (1995)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Nirex, Radioactive Wastes in the UK: A Summary of the, Inventory. United Kingdom Nirex Limited, Harwell (2002)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Novak, J.D., Cañas, A.J.: The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct Them. Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, Florida (2006)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Novak, J.D., Gowin, D.B.: Learning How to Learn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    O’Hare, M., Bacow, L., Sanderson, D.: Facility siting and opposition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Peelle, E.: The MRS Task Force: Economic and Non-economic Incentives for Local Public Acceptance of a Proposed Nuclear Waste Packaging and Storage Facility. Waste Management 87 (1987)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Petersen, T.V.: Linked Arms: A Rural Community Resists Nuclear Waste. SUNY Press, Albany (2001)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Phillips, W.A., Christie, D.F.M.: Components of visual memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 29, 117–133 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Rawles, K.: Ethical issues in the siting of radioactive waste management facilities: the role of local communities. United Kingdom Nirex Limited, Harwell (2004)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Rohrbaugh, J.: Improving the quality of group judgment: social judgment analysis and the nominal group technique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 28(2), 272–288 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Schusler, T.M., Decker, D.J., Pfeffer, M.J.: Social Learning for Collaborative Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources 16(4), 309–326 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Sjöberg, L.: Attitudes and Risk Perceptions of Stakeholders in a Nuclear Waste Siting Issue. Risk Analysis 23(4), 739–749 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Slovic, P., Flynn, J., Layman, M.: Perceived Risk, Trust and the Politics of Nuclear Waste. In: Slovic, P. (ed.) The Perception of Risk. Earthscan, London (2000)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Sundqvist, G.: Stakeholder Involvement in Radioactive Waste Management. Göteborg University, Göteborg (2005)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Weart, S.R.: Nuclear Fear: A History of Images. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Wildavsky, A., Dake, K.: Theories of Risk Perception: Who Fears What and Why? Journal of American Academy of Arts and Sciences 119(4), 41–60 (1990)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Williams-Jones, B., Graham, J.E.: Actor-Network Theory: a tool to support ethical analysis of commercial genetic testing. New Genetics and Society 22(3), 271–297 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Social Sciences University of SheffieldSheffieldUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations