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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 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.
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.
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.
Brey, P. (2010a). Philosophy of technology after the empirical turn. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 14(1), 36–48.
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.
Brey, P. (2012). Anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies. Nanoethics, 6(1), 1–13.
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.
Edler, J., Kuhlmann, S., & Behrens, M. (Eds.). (2003). Changing governance of research and technology policy: The European research area. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Owen, R., Bessant, J., & Heintz, M. (Eds.). (2013). Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Chichester: Wiley.
Skolimowski, H. (1966). The structure of thinking in technology. Technology and Culture, 7, 371–383.
Van de Poel, I., Royakkers, L., & Zwart, S. (2015). Moral responsibility and the problem of many hands. New York: Routledge.
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.
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.
Van der Burg, S., & Swierstra, T. (Eds.). (2013). Ethics on the laboratory floor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Vedder, A. (2001). Accountability of internet access and service providers – strict liability entering ethics? Ethics and Information Technology, 3(1), 67–74.
Verbeek, P.-P., & Slob, A. (Eds.). (2006). User behavior and technology development – Shaping sustainable relations between consumers and technologies. Dordrecht: Springer.
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.
Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.
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.
Wright, D. (2011). A framework for the ethical impact assessment of information technology. Ethics and Information Technology, 13(3), 199–226.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33717-3_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33716-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33717-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)