Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to achieve integration?

Methodological concepts and challenges for the integration of ethical, legal, social and economic aspects into technological development

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Das geteilte Ganze

Zusammenfassung

The idea that ethical, social, legal and economic aspects are important considerations in the development of emerging technologies is nothing new. In the 1990s, science policies in the United States began combining public funding for science with research on ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI). This inspired the ongoing development of related funding schemes in Europe such as ELSA (Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects) and RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation), the latter of which also addresses economic considerations. In addition, the academic disciplines representing these aspects – ethics, law, the social sciences and economics – have their own histories of relating to and influencing technological innovation.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • Balmer, Andrew S., Kate Bulpin, Matthew Kearnes, Adrian Mackenzie, Claire Marris, Paul Martin, et al. 2012: Towards a Manifesto for Experimental Collaborations between Social and Natural Scientists. https://experimentalcollaborations.wordpress.com. Accessed 20 October 2018.

  • Balmer, Andrew S., Jane Calvert, Claire Marris, Susan Molyneux-Hodgson, Emma Frow, Matthew Kearnes, et al. 2015: Taking Roles in Interdisciplinary Collaborations: Reflections on Working in Post-ELSI Spaces in the UK Synthetic Biology Community. Science & Technology Studies 28(3): 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balmer, Andrew S., Jane Calvert, Claire Marris, Susan Molyneux-Hodgson, Emma Frow, Matthew Kearnes, et al. 2016: Five Rules of Thumb for Post-ELSI Interdisciplinary Collaborations. Journal of Responsible Innovation 3(1): 73–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergek, Anna, Marko Hekkert, Staffan Jacobsson, Jochen Markard, Björn Sandén, Bernhard Truffer. 2016: Technological Innovation Systems in Contexts: Conceptualizing Contextual Structures and Interaction Dynamics. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 16: 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyer, Hugh, Karen Holtzblatt. 1998: Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • BMBF. 2013: Von der Begleitforschung zur integrierten Forschung. Erkenntnisse aus dem Förderschwerpunkt »Altersgerechte Assistenzsysteme für ein gesundes und unabhängiges Leben«. Bonn: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boix Mansilla, Veronica, Irwin Feller, Howard Gardner. 2006: Quality Assessment in Interdisciplinary Research and Education. Research Evaluation 15(1): 69–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brey, Philip A. E. 2012: Anticipating Ethical Issues in Emerging IT. Ethics and Information Technology 14(4): 305–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavoukian, Ann. 2011: Privacy by Design in Law, Policy and Practice: A White Paper for Regulators, Decision-makers and Policy-makers. Toronto: Information and Privacy Commissioner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge, David. 1982: The Social Control of Technology. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, Klaus, Kurt Geihs, Jan Marco Leimeister, Alexander Roßnagel, Ludger Schmidt, Gerd Stumme, Arno Wacker. 2014: Socio-technical Design of Ubiquitous Computing Systems. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defila, Rico, Antonietta Di Giulio. 2015: Integrating Knowledge: Challenges Raised by the »Inventory of Synthesis«. Futures 65: 123–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, Ana, Kamilla Lein Kjølberg, Fern Wickson. 2011: Public Engagement Coming of Age: From Theory to Practice in STS Encounters with Nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 20(6): 826–845.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durant, John. 1999: Participatory Technology Assessment and the Democratic Model of the Public Understanding of Science. Science and Public Policy 26(5): 313–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edquist, Charles. 2004: Reflections on the Systems of Innovation Approach. Science and Public Policy 31(6): 485–489. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154304781779741.

  • Fisher, Erik. 2005: Lessons Learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications Program (ELSI): Planning Societal Implications Research for the National Nanotechnology Program. Technology in Society 27(3): 321–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Erik. 2011: Editorial Overview: Public Science and Technology Scholars: Engaging Whom? Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 607–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Erik, Roop L. Mahajan, Carl Mitcham. 2006: Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance from Within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26(6): 485–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Erik, Michael O’Rourke, Robert Evans, Eric B. Kennedy, Michael E. Gorman, Thomas P. Seager. 2015: Mapping the Integrative Field: Taking Stock of Socio-technical Collaborations. Journal of Responsible Innovation 2(1): 39–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Erik, Daan Schuurbiers. 2013: Socio-technical Integration Research: Collaborative Inquiry at the Midstream of Research and Development. In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening Up the Laboratory, ed. Neelke Doorn, Daan Schuurbiers, Ibo van de Poel, Michael E. Gorman, 97–110. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, Christopher. 1992: Formal Scientific and Technical Institutions in the National System of Innovation. In National Systems of Innovation: Toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, ed. Bengt-Åke Lundvall, 169–187. London: Anthem Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, Batya, Peter H. Kahn, Jr. 2003: Human Values, Ethics and Design. In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, ed. Julie A. Jacko, Andrew Sears, 1177–1201. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehring, Petra. 2013: Technik in der Interdisziplinaritätsfalle: Anmerkungen aus Sicht der Philosophie. Journal of Technical Education 1(1): 132–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giacomin, Joseph. 2014: What Is Human Centred Design? Design Journal 17(4): 606–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, Armin. 2007: Auf dem Weg zu einer Theorie der Technikfolgenabschätzung. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 16(1): 4–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, Armin. 2011: Responsible Innovation: Bringing Together Technology Assessment, Applied Ethics, and STS Research. Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies 7: 9–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gürses, Seda, Carmela Troncoso, Claudia Diaz. 2011: Engineering Privacy by Design. https://www.esat.kuleuven.be/cosic/publications/article-1542.pdf. Zuletzt aufgerufen: 21.12.2019.

  • Guston, David H., Daniel Sarewitz. 2002: Real-Time Technology Assessment. Technology in Society 24: 93–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, Volker, Ulrich Pordesch, Alexander Roßnagel. 1993: Betriebliche Telefon- und ISDN-Anlagen rechtsgemäß gestaltet. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilgendorf, Eric. 2010: Bedingungen gelingender Interdisziplinarität – am Beispiel der Rechtswissenschaft. JuristenZeitung 19: 913–922.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, Axel, Thomas Schulz, Julia Zirfas, Holger Hoffmann, Alexander Roßnagel, Jan Marco Leimeister. 2015: Legal Compatibility as a Characteristic of Sociotechnical Systems. Business & Information Systems Engineering 57(2): 103–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtzblatt, Karen, Jessamyn Burns Wendell, Shelley Wood. 2005: Rapid Contextual Design: A How-To Guide to Key Techniques for User-Centered Design. Amsterdam: Elsevier Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huutoniemi, Katri. 2010: Evaluating Interdisciplinary Research. In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, 1st, ed. Robert Frodeman: 309–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konrad, Kornelia, Peter Stegmaier, Arie Rip, Stefan Kuhlmann. 2014: Constructive Technology Assessment—Antizipation modulieren als Teil der Governance von Innovation. In Vielfalt und Zusammenhalt. Verhandlungen des 36. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Bochum und Dortmund 2012, vol. 36, ed. Martina Löw, 1–12. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, David. 2013: »Privacy by Design«: Nice-to-Have or a Necessary Principle of Data Protection Law? Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law 4(1), para. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuppens, Tom, Miet van Dael, Kenny Vanreppelen, Theo Thewys, Jan Yperman, Robert Carleer, Steven van Passel. 2015: Techno-economic Assessment of Fast Pyrolysis for the Valorization of Short Rotation Coppice Cultivated for Phytoextraction. Journal of Cleaner Production 88: 336–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, Hellmuth, Veronika Fuest. 2015: Optionen zur Stärkung inter- und transdisziplinärer Verbundforschung. Artec-paper 201. Artec, Forschungszentrum Nachhaltigkeit, Universität Bremen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauer, Maximilian. 2008: Methodology Guideline on Techno-economic Assessment (TEA): Generated in the Framework of ThermalNet WP3B Economics. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/ intelligent/projects/sites/iee-projects/files/projects/documents/thermalnet_methodology_ guideline_on_techno_economic_assessment.pdf. Zuletzt aufgerufen: 21.12.2019.

  • Lundvall, Bengt-Åke. 1988: Innovation as an Interactive Process: From User-Producer Interaction to the National System of Innovation. In Technical Change and Economic Theory, ed. Giovanni Dosi, 349–367. IFIAS Research Series 6. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzeschke, Arne, Karsten Weber, Elisabeth Rother, Heiner Fangerau. 2013: Ergebnisse der Studie »Ethische Fragen im Bereich Altersgerechter Assistenzsysteme« Berlin: VDI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzeschke, Arne, Karsten Weber, Elisabeth Rother, Heiner Fangerau. 2015: Results of the Study »Ethical Questions in the Area of Age-Appropriate Assisting Systems«. Berlin: VDI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matzner, Tobias, Regina Ammicht Quinn. 2015: Sicherheitsethik in der Anwendung. Ein Praxistest gesellschaftlicher Begleitforschung. In Sichere Zeiten? Gesellschaftliche Dimensionen der Sicherheitsforschung, ed. Peter Zoche, Stefan Kaufmann, Harald Arnold, 219–234. Berlin and Münster: LIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, Rita, Ian MacMillan. 2000: Assessing Technology Projects Using Real Options Reasoning. Research Technology Management 43(4): 35–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mepham, Ben. 2000: A Framework for the Ethical Analysis of Novel Foods: The Ethical Matrix. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12: 165–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myskaja, Björn Kare, Rune Nydal, Anne Ingeborg Myhr. 2014: We Have Never Been ELSI Researchers—There Is No Need for a Post-ELSI Shift. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10(9). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4648827/. Zuletzt aufgerufen: 21.12.2019.

  • Nelson, Richard R. 1993: National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&- scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=140859. Zuletzt aufgerufen: 21.12.2019.

  • Palm, Elin, Sven Ove Hansson. 2006: The Case for Ethical Technology Assessment (eTA). Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73: 543–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piotrowski, Stephan, Michael Carus, Fabrizio Sibilla, Achim Raschka. 2014: New nova Methodology for Techno-Economic Evaluations of Innovative Industrial Processes (nTEE): With a Case Study Applied to a Lignocellulosic Biorefinery Concept (BIOCORE). Nova-Institute. Hürth (nova paper).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, Christian, Lorrae van Kerkhoff, Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn, Gabriele Bammer. 2008: Integration. In Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, ed. Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn, Jill Jäger, 411–425. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prietl, Bianca. 2016: Der Ingenieur als technisch kompetenter und sozial versierter Manager. Vergeschlechtliche Konturen eines Berufsbildes. Berliner Debatte Initial 27(1): 58–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, Anand B., Edward Rubin. 2002: A Technical, Economic and Environmental Assessment of Amine-Based CO2 Capture Technology for Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Control. Environmental Science & Technology 36(20): 4467–4475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reijers, Wessel, David Wright, Philip Brey, Karsten Weber, Rowena Rodrigues, Declan O’Sullivan, Bert Gordijn. 2017: Methods for Practising Ethics in Research and Innovation: A Literature Review, Critical Analysis and Recommendations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(5): 1437–1481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, Arie. 2007: Die Verzahnung von technologischen und sozialen Determinismen und die Ambivalenzen von Handlungsträgerschaft im »Constructive Technology Assessment«. In Gesellschaft und die Macht der Technik. Sozioökonomischer und institutioneller Wandel durch Technisierung, ed. Ulrich Dolata, Raymund Werle, 83–104. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, Arie, Thomas J. Misa, Johan Schot. 1995: Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment, 1st edn. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, Hannot, Erik Fisher, Daan Schuurbiers. 2013: Integrating Science and Society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in Project-Level Solicitations. Research Policy 42(5): 1126–1137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, Hannot, Mingyan Hu, Erik Fisher. 2012: Socio-technical Integration: Research Policies in the United States, European Union, and China. In Engineering, Development and Philosophy: American, Chinese and European Perspectives, ed. Steen Hyldgaard Christensen, Carl Mitcham, Bocong Li, Yanming An, 291–304. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, 11. Dordrecht and London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santosuosso, Amedeo, Oliver R. Goodenough, Marta Tomasi. 2015: The Challenge of Innovation in Law: The Impact of Technology and Science on Legal Studies and Practice. Law, Sciences and New Technologies, 1. Pavia: Pavia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, Philip. 2003: Datenschutz beim Internet-Einkauf: Gefährdungen – Anforderungen – Gestaltungen. Der elektronische Rechtsverkehr, Bd. 8. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schot, Johan, Arne Rip. 1997: The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54(2–3): 251–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuurbiers, Daan. 2011: What Happens in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 769–788.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sengers, Phoebe, Kirsten Boehner, Shay David, Joseph ›Jofish‹ Kaye. 2005: Reflective Design. In Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing: Between Sense and Sensibility, ed. Olav W. Bertelsen, 49–58. New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simić-Draws, Daniela, Stephan Neumann, Anna Kahlert, Philipp Richter, Rüdiger Grimm, Melanie Volkamer, Alexander Roßnagel. 2013: Holistic and Law-Compatible IT Security Evaluation: Integration of Common Criteria, ISO 27001/IT-Grundschutz and KORA. International Journal of Information Security and Privacy 7(3): 16–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skorupinski, Barbara, Konrad Ott. 2002: Technology Assessment and Ethics: Determining a Relationship in Theory and Practice. Poiesis & Praxis 1: 95–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, Phil Macnaghten. 2013: Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation. Research Policy 42(9): 1568–1580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbe, Julian. 2018: Innovationsimpuls »Integrierte Forschung«. Diskussionspapier des BMBF-Forschungsprogramms »Technik zum Menschen bringen«. https://www.technik- zum-menschen-bringen.de/dateien/service/veranstaltungen/diskussionspapier-integrierte- forschung-2018-05-25.pdf. Zuletzt aufgerufen: 21.12.2019.

  • Tassey, Gregory. 2003: Methods for Assessing the Economic Impacts of Government R&D. NIST Planning Report #03-01. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson Klein, Julie. 2008: Integration in der inter- und transdisziplinären Forschung. In Transdisziplinäre Forschung. Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten, ed. Matthias Hrsg. Bergmann, 93–117. Frankfurt am Main: Campus-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tran, Thien A., Tugrul Daim. 2008: A Taxonomic Review of Methods and Tools Applied in Technology Assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75(9): 1396–1405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venables, Anthony J. 2017: Incorporating Wider Economic Impacts within Cost–Benefit Appraisal. In Quantifying the Socio-economic Benefits of Transport, 109–27. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viseu, Ana. 2015a: Caring for Nanotechnology? Being an Integrated Social Scientist. Social Studies of Science 45(5): 642–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viseu, Ana. 2015b: Integration of Social Science into Research Is Crucial. Nature 525(7569): 291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warnke, Philine, Bruno Gransche. 2009: Mensch-Technik-Kooperation. In Zukunftsfelder neuen Zuschnitts. Foresight-Prozess im Auftrag des BMBF, ed. Kerstin Cuhls, Walter Ganz, Philine Warnke, 15–38. Karlsruhe and Stuttgart: Fraunhofer-Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung (ISI) und Fraunhofer-Institut für Arbeitswirtschaft und Organisation (IAO).

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, Andrew. 2007: Crossing Boundaries: Social Science in the Policy Room. Science, Technology & Human Values 32(4): 458–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, David. 2011: A Framework for the Ethical Impact Assessment of Information Technology. Ethics and Information Technology 13(3): 199–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Žižlavský, Ondřej. 2014: Net Present Value Approach: Method for Economic Assessment of Innovation Projects. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 156: 506–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.230.

  • Zwart, Hub, Laurens Landeweerd, Arjan van Rooij. 2014: Adapt or Perish? Assessing the Recent Shift in the European Research Funding Arena from »ELSA« to »RRI«. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10: 11.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Internationales Zentrum für Ethik in den Wissenschaften (IZEW), Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Deutschland

    Mone Spindler

  2. Uni Hamburg, Hamburg, Deutschland

    Sophia Booz

  3. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland

    Sebastian Runschke

  4. Fraunhofer-Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung ISI, Geschäftsfeld Bioökonomie und Lebenswissenschaften, Karlsruhe, Deutschland

    Sven Wydra

  5. Institut für Philosophie, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Deutschland

    Judith Zinsmaier

  6. Berlin, Deutschland

    Helya Gieseler

Authors
  1. Mone Spindler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sophia Booz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helya Gieseler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sebastian Runschke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sven Wydra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Judith Zinsmaier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mone Spindler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophie & Foresight, Forschungskolleg FoKoS, Universität Siegen, Siegen, Germany

    Bruno Gransche

  2. Anthropologie und Ethik für Gesundheitsberufe, Evangelische Hochschule Nürnberg, Nürnberg, Germany

    Arne Manzeschke

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Spindler, M., Booz, S., Gieseler, H., Runschke, S., Wydra, S., Zinsmaier, J. (2020). How to achieve integration?. In: Gransche, B., Manzeschke, A. (eds) Das geteilte Ganze. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26342-3_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26342-3_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-26341-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-26342-3

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation