Beyond checklists: toward an ethical-constructive technology assessment

References

• Akrich, M. 1992. “The De-scription of Technical Objects.” In Shaping Technology-Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by W. E. Bijker and J. Law, 205–244. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Akrich, M., and B. Latour. 1992. “A Summary of a Convenient Vocabulary for the Semiotics of Human and Nonhuman Assemblies.” In Shaping Technology/Building Society. Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by W. E. Bijker and J. Law, 259–264. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Albrechtslund, A. 2007. “Ethics and Technology Design.” Ethics and Information Technology 9 (1): 63–72. doi: 10.1007/s10676-006-9129-8
   Google Scholar
• Barben, D., E. Fisher, C. Selin, and D. H. Guston. 2007. “Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Third Edition, edited by E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 979–1000. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boenink, M., T. Swierstra, and D. Stemerding. 2010. “Anticipating the Interaction between Technology and Morality: A Techno-ethical Scenario Study of Experimenting with Humans in Bionanotechnology.” Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology 4 (2): 1–38. doi: 10.2202/1941-6008.1098
   Google Scholar
• Dorrestijn, S., and P. P. Verbeek. 2013. “Technology, Wellbeing, and Freedom: The Legacy of Utopian Design’.” International Journal of Design 7 (3): 45–56.
   Google Scholar
• Dorrestijn, S., M. van der Voort, and P. P. Verbeek. 2014. “Future User-product Arrangements: Combining Product Impact and Scenarios in Design for Multi Age Success.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 89 (1): 284–292. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.08.005
   Google Scholar
• Ferrari, A. 2010. “Developments in the Debate on Nanoethics: Traditional Approaches and the Need for New Kinds of Analysis.” NanoEthics 4 (1): 27–52. doi: 10.1007/s11569-009-0081-z
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, E., R. L. Mahajan, and C. Mitcham. 2006. “Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance from within.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26 (6): 485–496. doi: 10.1177/0270467606295402
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison. New York, NY: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. 1984. The Care of the Self (vol. 3 of The History of Sexuality). London: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. 1988. “Technologies of Self.” In Technologies of Self. A Seminar with Michel Foucault, edited by L. H. Martin, H. Gutman, and P. H. Hutton, 16–49. London: Tavistock.
   Google Scholar
• Geels, F. 2005. Technological Transitions and System Innovations: A Co-evolutionary and Socio-technical Analysis. Cheltenham: Edwards Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Guston, D. H. 2014. “Understanding ‘Anticipatory Governance’.” Social Studies of Science 44 (2): 218–242. doi: 10.1177/0306312713508669
   Google Scholar
• Ihde, D. 1983. Existential Technics. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ihde, D. 1990. Technology and the Lifeworld. From Garden to Earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kiran, A. H. 2012a. “Responsible Design. A Conceptual Look at Interdependent Design-use Dynamics.” Philosophy and Technology 25 (2): 179–198. doi: 10.1007/s13347-011-0052-5
   Google Scholar
• Kiran, A. H. 2012b. “Technological Presence. Actuality and Potentiality in Subject Constitution.” Human Studies 35 (1): 77–93. doi: 10.1007/s10746-011-9208-7
   Google Scholar
• Kiran, A. H. Forthcoming. “Four Dimensions of Technological Mediation.” In Postphenomenological Investigations: Essays in Human-Technology Relations, edited by R. Rosenberger and P. P. Verbeek, forthcoming. New York, NY: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Lindsay, C. 2003. “From the Shadows: Users as Designers, Producers, Marketers, Distributors, and Technical.” In How Users Matter. The Co-construction of Users and Technology, edited by N. E. J. Oudshoorn and T. J. Pinch, 29–50. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maathuis, I., and N. E. J. Oudshoorn. Forthcoming. “Who Cares? Telecare Technologies and Self-management of COPD Patients.” Under review.
   Google Scholar
• Mol, A. 1997. Wat is kiezen? Een empirisch-filosofische verkenning. Inaugural lecture. Universiteit Twente.
   Google Scholar
• Oudshoorn, N. E. J. 2009. “Physical and Digital Proximity. Emerging Ways of Health Care in Face-to-face and Telemonitoring of Heart-failure Patients.” Sociology of Health & Illness 31 (3): 390–405. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2008.01141.x
   Google Scholar
• Oudshoorn, N. E. J. 2011. Telecare Technologies and the Transformation of Healthcare. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Oudshoorn, N. E. J. Forthcoming. “Sustaining Cyborgs. Sensing and Negotiating the Agency of Pacemakers and ICDs.” Social Studies of Science.
   Google Scholar
• Oudshoorn, N. E. J., M. Brouns, and E. van Oost. 2005. “Diversity and Distributed Agency in the Design and Use of Medical Video-Communication Technologies.” In Inside the Politics of Technology, edited by H. Harbers, 85–105. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oudshoorn, N. E. J., and T. J. Pinch, eds. 2003. How Users Matter: The Co-construction of Users and Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Palm, E., and S. O. Hansson. 2006. “The Case for Ethical Technology Assessment (eTA).” Technological forecasting and social change 73 (5): 543–558. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2005.06.002
   Google Scholar
• Pols, J. 2012. Care at a Distance. On the Closeness of Technology. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rip, A., and H. t. Kulve. 2008. “Constructive Technology Assessment and Sociotechnical Scenarios.” In The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume I: Presenting Futures, edited by E. Fisher, C. Selin, and J. M. Wetmore, 49–70. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, E. M. (1962) 2003. Diffusion of Innovation. 5th ed. New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sawicki, J. 2003. “Heidegger and Foucault: Escaping Technological Nihilism.” In Foucault and Heidegger: Critical Encounters, edited by A. Milchman and A. Rosenber, 55–73. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schot, J. 1998. “Constructive Technology Assessment Comes of Age.” In Technology Meets the Public. Pesto Papers 2, edited by A. Jamison, 207–232. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schot, J., and A. Rip. 1996. “The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54 (2–3): 251–268. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1
   Google Scholar
• Shelley-Egan, C. 2011. “Ethics in Practice: Responding to an Evolving Problematic Situation of Nanotechnology in Society.” PhD thesis., University of Twente.
   Google Scholar
• Stemerding, D., T. Swierstra, and M. Boenink. 2010. “Exploring the Interaction between Technology and Morality in the Field of Genetic Susceptibility Testing: A Scenario Study.” Futures 42 (10): 1133–1145. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2009.12.001
   Google Scholar
• Strassnig, M. 2009. “Ethics is like a Book That One Reads When One has Time. Exploring lay ‘ethical’ knowledge in a public engagement setting.” PhD thesis., University of Vienna: Internal publication.
   Google Scholar
• Swierstra, T., M. Boenink, and D. Stemerding. 2009. “Exploring Techno-moral Change: The Case of the Obesity Pill.” In Evaluating New Technologies. Methodological Problems for the Ethical Assessment of Technology Developments, edited by P. Sollie and M. Düwell, 119–138. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Swierstra, T., and H. te Molder. 2012. “Risk and Soft Impacts.” In Handbook of Risk Theory, edited by S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin, and M. Peterson, 1049–1066. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Swierstra, T., and A. Rip. 2007. “Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of Moral Argumentation about New and Emerging Science and Technology.” Nanoethics 1 (1): 3–20. doi: 10.1007/s11569-007-0005-8
   Google Scholar
• Swierstra, T., and K. Waelbers. 2012. “Designing a Good Life: A Matrix for the Technological Mediation of Morality.” Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (1): 157–172. doi: 10.1007/s11948-010-9251-1
   Google Scholar
• Van der Burg, S. 2006. “Ethical Imagination: Broadening Laboratory Deliberations.” In Emotions about Risky Technologies, edited by S. Roeser, 139–155. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Burg, S. 2009. “Taking the “Soft Impacts” of Technology into Account: Broadening the Discourse in Research Practice.” Social Epistemology 23 (3–4): 301–316. doi: 10.1080/02691720903364191
   Google Scholar
• Van Oost, E., S. Verhaegh, and N. E. J. Oudshoorn. 2009. “From Innovation Community to Community Innovation: User-initiated Innovation in Wireless Leiden.” Science, Technology & Human Values 34 (2): 182–205. doi: 10.1177/0162243907311556
   Google Scholar
• Verbeek, P. P. 2005. What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency and Design. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Verbeek, P. P. 2011. Moralizing Technology. Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Verbeek, P. P. 2013. “Technology Design as Experimental Ethics.” In Ethics on the Laboratory Floor, edited by S. van der Burg and Tsj. Swierstra, 83–100. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Wyatt, S. 2003. “Non-users also Matter: The Co-construction of Users and Non-users of the Internet.” In How Users Matter. The Co-construction of Users and Technology, edited by N. E. J. Oudshoorn and T. J. Pinch, 67–81. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zwart, S. D., I. van de Poel, H. van Mil, and M. Brumsen. 2006. “A Network Approach for Distinguishing Ethical Issues in Research and Development.” Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (4): 663–684. doi: 10.1007/s11948-006-0063-2
   Google Scholar