Abstract
This article describes a method of scoping for potential ethical contentions within a resource constrained research environment where actor participation and bottom–up analysis is precluded. Instead of reverting to a top–down analytical structure, a data-led process is devised. This imitates a bottom–up analytic structure in the absence of the direct participation of actors, culminating in the construction of a map of the ethical landscape; a high-resolution ethical matrix of coded interpretations of various actors’ ethical framings of the technology. Despite its limitations, which are discussed, the map can subsequently support the identification of areas where ethical contentions may be raised. Here, the method is described with reference to the construction and analysis of a map of the ethical landscape of carbon capture and storage technology. Taken as a preliminary stage of a larger study, it can support the design and initiation of more sophisticated analyses which may integrate stronger bottom–up participation and facilitate a reflective, deliberative process amongst actors.
Highlights
Actors have varying and dynamic perspectives upon how a technology may conform with or deviate from the ethical principles they hold
The method is described with reference to the construction and analysis of a map of the ethical landscape of carbon capture and storage technology
By interpreting, documenting and considering the ethical landscape of a technology, we can scope for potential ethical issues and develop greater understanding of the issues that matter to a variety of actors
Summary
Actors have varying and dynamic perspectives upon how a technology may conform with or deviate from the ethical principles they hold. By interpreting, documenting and considering the ethical landscape of a technology, we can scope for potential ethical issues and develop greater understanding of the issues that matter to a variety of actors. Such social understandings of technology are increasingly valued in recent years. McLaren (2012) has explored CCS in relation to the potential procedural justice issues that might apply, considering where and why potential impacts might arise along the pathway between R&D and policy to decommissioning of storage sites In his analysis, McLaren distinguishes localised, site related impacts and generic, typically indirect impacts (such as for example, the impacts of coal mining, or on energy markets). The final section offers concluding remarks which acknowledges the limitations of the approach and highlights the potential benefits of extending the method to a fully participative and deliberative approach
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
