Abstract
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).
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Keywords
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.
References
Alexander, I.F.: A Taxonomy of Stakeholders: Human Roles in System Development. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction 1(1), 23–59 (2005)
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)
Andrén, M.: Nuclear Waste Management and Legitimacy: Nihilism and Responsibility. Routledge, Abingdon (2012)
Atherton, E., Poole, M.: The Problem of the UK’s Radioactive Waste: What Have We Learnt? Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 26, 296–302 (2001)
Ausubel, D.P., Novak, J.D., Hanesian, H.: Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, 2nd Aufl. Rinehart and Winston, New York (1978)
Avons, S.E., Phillips, W.A.: Representation of matrix patterns in long- and short term visual memory. Acta Psychologica 65, 227–246 (1987)
Beck, U.: Risk Society: Toward a New Modernity. Sage, London (1996)
BGS. Managing Waste Safely: Initial Geolgical Unsuitability Screening of West Cumbria. British Geological Survey, Nottingham (2010)
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)
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)
Blowers, A., Lowry, D., Solomon, B.D.: The International Politics of Nuclear Waste. MacMillan, London (1991)
Blowers, A.: Ethics and Decision Making for Radioactive Waste. Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, London (2006)
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)
Blowers, A., Sundqvist, G.: Radioactive waste management - technocratic dominance in an age of participation. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 7(3), 149–155 (2010)
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)
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)
Buzan, T.: The Mind Map Book: Radiant Thinking - Major Evolution in Human Thought. BBC Active, London (2003)
Carter, L.J.: Nuclear Imperatives and Public Trust: Dealing with Radioactive Waste. Resources for the Future, Danvers (1989)
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)
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)
Collier, D.: CoRWM Final Evaluation Statement. Faulkland Associates, Oxford (2006)
CoRWM. Guiding Principles (2004) (accessed November 11, 2006)
CoRWM (2005), Why we need to consult, http://www.corwm.org/content-413 (accessed July 1, 2012)
CoRWM, Managing our Radioactive Waste Safely: CoRWM’s recommendations to Government. Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, London (2006)
Cotton, M.: Ethical assessment in radioactive waste management: a proposed reflective equilibrium-based deliberative approach. Journal of Risk Research 12(5), 603–618 (2009)
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)
de Bono, E.: Six Thinking Hats. Palgrave, London (1985)
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)
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)
Delbecq, A.L., Van-de-Ven, A.H., Gustafson, D.H.: Group Techniques for Program Planning. Scott Foresman and Company, Glenview (1975)
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)
Douglas, M.: Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences. Sage, London (1986)
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)
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)
Flüeler, T.: Decision making for complex socio-technical systems: robustness from lessons learned in long term radioactive waste governance. Springer, Dordrecht (2006)
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)
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)
Freudenberg, W.R.: Can we learn from failure? Examining US experiences with nuclear repository siting. Journal of Risk Research 7(2), 153–169 (2004)
Gemmell, C.: Long-term Radioactive Waste Management - Public & Stakeholder Engagement Consultation Document. Scottish Environment Protection Agency, CoRWM, London (2005)
Gregory, S., Satterfield, T.: Beyond Perception: The Experience of Risk and Stigma in Community Contexts. Risk Analysis 22(2), 347–358 (2002)
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)
Gunderson, W.C.: Voluntarism and its limits: Canada’s search for radioactive waste-siting candidates. Canadian Public Administration 42(2), 193–214 (1999)
Hare, M.P., Pahl-Wostl, C.: Stakeholder categorisation in participatory integrated assessment processes. Integrated Assessment 3, 50–62 (2002)
Hodgson, A.M.: Hexagons for systems thinking. In: Morecroft, J.D.W., Sterman, J.D. (eds.) Modelling for Learning Organisations. Productivity Press, Portland (1994)
Hodgson, A.M.: Hexagons for Systems Thinking. European Journal of Operational Research 59(1), 220–230 (1992)
IAEA, Ethical Considerations in Protecting the Environment from the Effects of Ionizing Radiation: A Report for Discussion (2002)
Kaner, S., Lind, L., Toldi, C., Fisk, S., Berger, D.: Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-making. Community at Work, San Fransisco (2007)
Kemp, R.: The Politics of Radioactive Waste Disposal. Manchester University Press, Manchester (1992)
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)
Kikuchi, T.: Temporal characteristics of visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 13, 464–477 (1987)
Latour, B.: We have never been modern. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead (1993)
Latour, B.: La science en action: introduction à la sociologie des sciences (Science in action: introduction to the sociology of science). Gallimard, Paris (1995)
Law, J., Hassard, J.: Actor Network Theory and After. Blackwell, Oxford (1999)
Lidskog, A., Litmanen, T.: The Social Shaping of Radwaste Management: the Case of Sweden and Finland. Current Sociology 45(8), 59–79 (1997)
Litemanen, T.: Environmental Conflict as Social Construction: Nuclear Waste Conflict in Finland. Society and Natural Resources 9, 523–535 (1996)
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)
Marshall, A.: The Social and Ethical Aspects of Nuclear Waste. Electronic Green Journal (21), 1–22 (2005)
McCutcheon, C.: Nuclear Reactions: The Politics of Opening a Radioactive Waste Disposal Site. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque (2002)
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)
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)
Nirex, Radioactive Wastes in the UK: A Summary of the, Inventory. United Kingdom Nirex Limited, Harwell (2002)
Novak, J.D., Cañas, A.J.: The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct Them. Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, Florida (2006)
Novak, J.D., Gowin, D.B.: Learning How to Learn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)
O’Hare, M., Bacow, L., Sanderson, D.: Facility siting and opposition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1983)
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)
Petersen, T.V.: Linked Arms: A Rural Community Resists Nuclear Waste. SUNY Press, Albany (2001)
Phillips, W.A., Christie, D.F.M.: Components of visual memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 29, 117–133 (1977)
Rawles, K.: Ethical issues in the siting of radioactive waste management facilities: the role of local communities. United Kingdom Nirex Limited, Harwell (2004)
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)
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)
Sjöberg, L.: Attitudes and Risk Perceptions of Stakeholders in a Nuclear Waste Siting Issue. Risk Analysis 23(4), 739–749 (2003)
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)
Sundqvist, G.: Stakeholder Involvement in Radioactive Waste Management. Göteborg University, Göteborg (2005)
Weart, S.R.: Nuclear Fear: A History of Images. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1988)
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)
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)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cotton, M. (2014). Opening Up Ethical Dialogue. In: Ethics and Technology Assessment: A Participatory Approach. Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, vol 13. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45088-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45088-4_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-45087-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-45088-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)