Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Constructive Philosophy of Technology and Responsible Innovation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Philosophy of Technology after the Empirical Turn

Part of the book series: Philosophy of Engineering and Technology ((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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
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.

    It should also be clear that by arguing for a constructive philosophy of technology, I am not necessarily advocating an approach that is (socially) constructivist. I am arguing that the philosophy of technology should be more constructive, in the sense of being more focused on changing technology rather than just understanding it. This does not necessarily imply the (social) constructivist view that knowledge, technology and reality are the product of social meanings and processes, and that the physical world plays a small or nonexistent role in shaping and defining them.

  2. 2.

    It should be cautioned, however, that no studies have been done of the effects of having philosophers in these programs and the degree to which they helped improve the outcome of them.

  3. 3.

    In addition, both individual users and organizations can be organized into user groups.

References

  • Brey, P. (1999). Worker autonomy and the drama of digital networks in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 22, 15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brey, P. (2010a). Philosophy of technology after the empirical turn. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 14(1), 36–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brey, P. (2012). Anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies. Nanoethics, 6(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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

  • Feenberg, A. (1992). Subversive rationalization: Technology, power, and democracy. Inquiry, 35(3–4), 301–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, R., Bessant, J., & Heintz, M. (Eds.). (2013). Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skolimowski, H. (1966). The structure of thinking in technology. Technology and Culture, 7, 371–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Poel, I., Royakkers, L., & Zwart, S. (2015). Moral responsibility and the problem of many hands. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Van der Burg, S., & Swierstra, T. (Eds.). (2013). Ethics on the laboratory floor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedder, A. (2001). Accountability of internet access and service providers – strict liability entering ethics? Ethics and Information Technology, 3(1), 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek, P.-P., & Slob, A. (Eds.). (2006). User behavior and technology development – Shaping sustainable relations between consumers and technologies. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wright, D. (2011). A framework for the ethical impact assessment of information technology. Ethics and Information Technology, 13(3), 199–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Philip Brey

Authors
  1. Philip Brey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philip Brey .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept of Philosophy, Delft Univ of Technology, Delft, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands

    Maarten Franssen

  2. Department of Philosophy, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Pieter E. Vermaas

  3. Dept of Philosophy, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Peter Kroes

  4. Department of Philosophy and Ethics, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Noord-Brabant, The Netherlands

    Anthonie W.M. Meijers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Brey, P. (2016). Constructive Philosophy of Technology and Responsible Innovation. In: Franssen, M., Vermaas, P., Kroes, P., Meijers, A. (eds) Philosophy of Technology after the Empirical Turn. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33717-3_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation