Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Engineers and Active Responsibility

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Knowing that technologies are inherently value-laden and systemically interwoven with society, the question is how individual engineers can take up the challenge of accepting the responsibility for their work? This paper will argue that engineers have no institutional structure at the level of society that allows them to recognize, reflect upon, and actively integrate the value-laden character of their designs. Instead, engineers have to tap on the different institutional realms of market, science, and state, making their work a ‘hybrid’ activity combining elements from the different institutional realms. To deal with this institutional hybridity, engineers develop routines and heuristics in their professional network, which do not allow societal values to be expressed in a satisfactory manner. To allow forms of ‘active’ responsibility, there have to be so-called ‘accountability forums’ that guide moral reflections of individual actors. The paper will subsequently look at the methodologies of value-sensitive design (VSD) and constructive technology assessment (CTA) and explore whether and how these methodologies allow engineers to integrate societal values into the design technological artifacts and systems. As VSD and CTA are methodologies that look at the process of technological design, whereas the focus of this paper is on the designer, they can only be used indirectly, namely as frameworks which help to identify the contours of a framework for active responsibility of engineers.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Accessed on 7-4-2014.

References

  • Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society (pp. 205–224). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal, 99(394), 116–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avenel, E., Favier, A. V., Ma, S., Mangematin, V., & Rieu, C. (2007). Diversification and hybridization in firm knowledge bases in nanotechnologies. Research Policy, 36(6), 864–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basart, J. M., & Serra, M. (2013). Engineering ethics beyond engineers’ ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(1), 179–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benn, S. I., & Gaus, G. F. (1983). The liberal conception of the public and the private. In S. I. Benn & G. F. Gaus (Eds.), Public and private in social life (pp. 31–65). London & Canberra: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobbio, N. (1989). Democracy and dictatorship: The nature and limits of state power. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M. A. P. (1998). The quest for responsibility: Accountability and citizenship in complex organisations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. D. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constant, E. W. (1987). The social locus of technological practice: Community, system, or organization. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 223–242). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. (1963). Politics, economics, and welfare: Planning and politico-economic systems resolved into basic social processes. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. (1991). Thinking like an engineer: The place of a code of ethics in the practice of a profession. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 20(2), 150–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. (1999). Professional responsibility: Just following the rules? Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 18(1), 65–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doorn, N. (2012). Responsibility ascriptions in technology development and engineering: Three perspectives. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(1), 69–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elzen, B., Enserink, B., & Smit, W. A. (1996). Socio-technical networks: How a technology studies approach may help to solve problems related to technical change. Social Studies of Science, 26(1), 95–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., & Borning, A. (2002). Value sensitive design: Theory and methods. University of Washington Technical Report 02-12-01. Seattle: University of Washington.

  • Garud, R., & Ahlstrom, D. (1997). Technology assessment: A socio-cognitive perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14(1), 25–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 24–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genus, A., & Coles, A.-M. (2008). Rethinking the multi-level perspective of technological transitions. Research Policy, 37(9), 1436–1445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M. (2000). Mode 2 society and the emergence of context-sensitive science. Science and Public Policy, 27(3), 159–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, A. (2001). The application of ethics to engineering and the engineer’s moral responsibility: Perspectives for a research agenda. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(3), 415–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H. (2004). Responsible innovation in the commercialized University. In D. G. Stein (Ed.), Buying in or selling out? The commercialization of the American Research University (pp. 161–174). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellström, T. (2003). Systemic innovation and risk: Technology assessment and the challenge of responsible innovation. Technology in Society, 25(3), 369–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koepsell, D. (2010). On genies and bottles: Scientists’ moral responsibility and dangerous technology R&D. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(1), 119–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landes, D. S. (2003). The unbound Prometheus: Technological change and industrial development in Western Europe from 1750 to the present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society (pp. 225–258). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., & Fu, S. (2012). A systematic approach to engineering ethics education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 339–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manders-Huits, N. (2011). What values in design? The challenge of incorporating moral values into design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(2), 271–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1979). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S. (2006). Collective moral responsibility: An individualist account. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 30(1), 176–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minogue, K. (1963). The moral character of liberalism: The liberal mind. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulder, K. F., Oetrik, O., Parandian, A., & Gröndahl, F. (2012). Scenario based learning regarding contested articulations of sustainability: The example of hydropower and Sweden’s energy future. International Journal of Sustainable Water and Environmental Systems, 4(1), 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1977). In search of useful theory of innovation. Research Policy, 6(1), 36–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nissenbaum, H. (2005). Values in technical design. In C. Mitcham (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science, technology and society (pp. 66–70). New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oudshoorn, N., Saetnan, A. R., & Lie, M. (2002). On gender and things: Reflections on an exhibition on gendered artifacts. Women’s Studies International Forum, 25(4), 471–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, R., & Goldberg, N. (2010). Responsible innovation: A pilot study with the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Risk Analysis, 30(11), 1699–1707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parandian, A. (2012). Constructive TA of newly emerging technologies: Stimulating learning by anticipation through bridging events. Delft: Delft University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parandian, A., Rip, A., & Te Kulve, H. (2012). Dual dynamics of promises, and waiting games around emerging nanotechnologies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(6), 565–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesch, U. (2005). The predicaments of publicness: An inquiry into the conceptual ambiguity of public administration. Delft: Eburon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesch, U. (2008a). Administrators and accountability: The plurality of value systems in the public domain. Public Integrity, 10(4), 335–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesch, U. (2008b). The publicness of public administration. Administration & Society, 40(2), 170–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesch, U. (2014). Sustainable development and institutional boundaries. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 18(1), 39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pieterson, M., & Bem, S. (1981). Het Technisch labyrint: Een maatschappijgeschiedenis van drie industriële revoluties. Meppel: Boom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, K. (2001). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, M. S. (2001). Responsible engineering: The importance of character and imagination. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(3), 391–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, M. S. (2009). Professional standards in engineering practice. In A. W. M. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 953–971). Burlington: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ravetz, J. (1996). Scientific knowledge and its social problems. New Brunswick & London: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (1995). Introduction of new technology: Making use of recent insights from sociology and economics of technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 7(4), 417–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. In S. Rayner & E. L. Malone (Eds.), Human choice and climate change (Vol. 2, pp. 327–399). Columbus: Battelle Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D. K. R. (2009). Co-evolutionary scenarios: An application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(9), 1222–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roeser, S. (2011). Nuclear energy, risk, and emotions. Philosophy & Technology, 24(2), 197–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & Van Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution: Transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3(1), 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J. A. (2013). Changing the paradigm for engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 1–26.

  • Schot, J. (2001). Towards new forms of participatory technology development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 13(1), 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2–3), 251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, G. (1960). The public interest: A critique of the theory of a political concept. Glencoe: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. (1998). Information rules: A strategic guide. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shklar, J. (1984). Ordinary vices. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smits, R., Leyten, J., & Den Hertog, P. (1995). Technology assessment and technology policy in Europe: New concepts, new goals, new infrastructures. Policy Sciences, 28(3), 271–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swierstra, T., & Jelsma, J. (2006). Responsibility without moralism in technoscientific design practice. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(3), 309–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taebi, B., Correljé, A., Cuppen, E., Dignum, M., & Pesch, U. (2014). Responsible innovation as an endorsement of public values: The need for interdisciplinary research. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1), 118–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Te Kulve, H., & Rip, A. (2011). Constructing productive engagement: Pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 699–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D. F. (1980). Moral responsibility of public officials: The problem of many hands. The American Political Science Review, 74(4), 905–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unruh, G. C. (2000). Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy, 28(12), 817–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Poel, I. (2000). On the role of outsiders in technical development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 12(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Poel, I. (2001). Investigating ethical issues in engineering design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(3), 429–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Poel, I., Nihlén Fahlquist, J., Doorn, N., Zwart, S., & Royakkers, L. (2012). The problem of many hands: Climate change as an example. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(1), 49–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Poel, I., & Royakkers, L. (2011). Ethics, technology and engineering. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Poel, I., & Van Gorp, A. C. (2006). The need for ethical reflection in engineering design. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(3), 333–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Bergh, J. C. J. M., Truffer, B., & Kallis, G. (2011). Environmental innovation and societal transitions: Introduction and overview. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Ende, J., Mulder, K., Knot, M., Moors, E., & Vergragt, P. (1998). Traditional and modern technology assessment: Toward a toolkit. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 58(1), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Hoven, J. (2005). Design for values and values for design. Information Age, 4, 4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Hoven, J. (2007). ICT and value sensitive design. In P. Goujon, S. Lavelle, P. Duquenoy, K. Kimppa, & V. Laurent (Eds.), The information society: Innovation, legitimacy, ethics and democracy (pp. 67–72). Boston: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Hoven, J. (2013). Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation. Report of the expert group on the state of art in Europe on responsible research and innovation. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Gunsteren, H. (1994). Culturen van besturen. Amsterdam & Meppel: Boom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Lente, H. (1993). Promising technology: The dynamics of expectations in technological developments. Enschede: University of Twente.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Lente, H., & Rip, A. (1998). The rise of membrane technology. Social Studies of Science, 28(2), 221–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park: Penn State Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waelbers, K. (2009). Technological delegation: Responsibility for the unintended. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(1), 51–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1946). Science as a vocation. In H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 129–156). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weintraub, J. (1997). The theory and politics of the public/private distinction. In J. Weintraub & K. Kumar (Eds.), Public and private in thought and practice: Perspectives on a grand dichotomy (pp. 1–42). Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolsink, M. (2000). Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: Institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy, 21(1), 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Values, Technology and Innovation, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, P.O. Box 5015, 2628 BX, Delft, The Netherlands

    Udo Pesch

Authors
  1. Udo Pesch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Udo Pesch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pesch, U. Engineers and Active Responsibility. Sci Eng Ethics 21, 925–939 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9571-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9571-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation