Abstract
Over the past 50 years, policy makers have sought to shape new and emerging technologies in light of societal risks, public values, and ethical concerns. While much of this work has taken place during “upstream” research prioritization and “downstream” technology regulation, the actual “midstream” work of engineers and other technical experts has increasingly been seen as a site for governing technology in society. This trend towards “socio-technical integration” is reflected in various governance frameworks such as Sustainable Development (SD), Technology Assessment (TA), and Responsible Innovation (RI) that are at the center of transformation research. Discussions around SD, TA, and RI often focus on meso- and macro-level processes and dynamics, with less attention paid to the qualities of individuals that are needed to support transformation processes. We seek to highlight the importance of micro-level practices by drawing attention to the virtues of technical experts. Drawing on empirical study results from embedding philosophical-reflective dialogues within science and engineering laboratories, we claim that poietic, as well as moral and epistemic, virtues belong to those required of technical experts who foster integrative practices in transformation research.
Highlights
We propose that multiple levels of transformation are needed and that a common feature in these debates is the demand identified by Carl Mitcham of plus respicere [4], i.e., to “take more into account” on the part of the technical experts who must eventually change their practices as Sustainable Development (SD), Technology Assessment (TA), Responsible Innovation (RI)
This paper proposed a hybrid interpretation of transformation research in the context of normative governance frameworks, such as sustainable development, technology assessment, and responsible innovation
We conducted a theoretical exposition of the capacities that are found to be exercised by scientists, engineers, and other technical experts who participated in prior empirical studies that employed Socio-Technical Integration Research (STIR) dialogues
Summary
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. We propose that multiple levels of transformation are needed and that a common feature in these debates is the demand identified by Carl Mitcham of plus respicere [4], i.e., to “take more into account” on the part of the technical experts who must eventually change their practices as SD, TA, RI and similar governance frameworks become more widely adopted This demand of plus respicere is visible in the development of TA from primarily a parliamentary function to one that engages a three-fold constellation of policy makers, members of the Sustainability 2021, 13, 10416. The primary claim we advocate in this paper is that moral, epistemic, and poietic virtues all belong to the required virtues of technical experts and engineers who participate in the integrative activities and aspirations that governance frameworks, such as SD, TA, and RI, are concerned with.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
