Preview

Discourse

Advanced search

RESPONSIBILITY AS A REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE IN THE FIELD OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

https://doi.org/10.32603/2412-8562-2018-4-3-10-17

Abstract

The concept of “Responsible Research and Innovation” (RRI) is analyzed in the framework of Technology Assessment. The role of social regulators in the development and implementation of modern technologies is described. Clashes of interests, goals, and values occur in public debates devoted to models of technological future. To possibly resolve this conflict the authors analyze the concept of “responsibility” philosophically and methodologically (the category of responsibility is considered regarding its constitutive and regulatory principles). A concept of “open responsibility” is introduced to use ethical systems on the basis of up-to-date critical ontologies. Open responsibility is considered in the context of transdisciplinary approach. The transdisciplinary approach brings together philosophical, theoretical and practical aspects in the social matrix of responsible innovations.

About the Authors

V. N. Zheleznjak
Perm National Research Polytechnic University
Russian Federation


E. V. Seredkina
Perm National Research Polytechnic University, RRI_Lab research laboratory
Russian Federation


References

1. The Clayton M. Christensen Reader. Selected articles from the world’s foremost authority on Disruptive Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business Rev. Press, 2016.

2. Grunwald A. Technikfolgenabschätzung - eine Einführung. Berlin: Edition Sigma, 2010.

3. Железняк В. Н., Железняк В. С. Будущее во множественном числе: социальная футурология техники в Германии // Вестн. ПНИПУ. 2016. № 2. С. 5-16.

4. Hahn J., Merz C., Scherz C. Identity shaping: Challenges of advising parliaments and society. A Brief History of Parliamentary Technology Assessment // Philosophy of Science and Technology. 2015. № 2 (20). P. 164-178.

5. Grunwald A. Responsible innovation: Bringing together technology assessment, applied ethics, and STS research // Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies. 2011. № 7. P. 9-31.

6. Chernikova I., Grunwald A., Seredkina E. New Impulses for the TA-Networking in Russia // TATuP. 2015. № 3(24). P. 109-114.

7. Философия ответственности: колл. монограф. / под ред. Е. Н. Лисанюк, В. Ю. Перова М.: Наука, 2014.

8. Jasanoff S. Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science // Minerva. 2003. № 41. P. 223-244.

9. Середкина Е. В. Социальная оценка техники в поворотные времена: вызовы трансдисциплинарности и национального // Вестн. ПНИПУ. 2017. № 2. С. 66-73.

10. Sadowski J. Office of technology assessment: history, implementation, and participatory critique // Technology in Society. 2015. № 42. P. 9-20.

11. Kant I. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Leipzig: Verlag Philipp Reclam j., 1979.

12. Кант И. Критика чистого разума. М.: Мысль, 1994.

13. Jaspers K. Philosophie. Bd. II. Berlin; Heidelberg; New York: Springer-Verlag. 1973.

14. Динабург С. Р. Инструменты и ресурсы трансдисциплинарных стратегий // Вестн. ПНИПУ. 2016. № 1. С. 51-62.

15. Киященко Л. П., Моисеев В. И. Философия трансдисциплинарности. М.: ИФРАН, 2009.

16. Герасимова И. А. Неустранимость неопределенности в социальной оценке техники // Эпистемология и филос. науки. 2012. № 2, т. 32. С. 123-140.


Review

For citations:


Zheleznjak V.N., Seredkina E.V. RESPONSIBILITY AS A REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE IN THE FIELD OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT. Discourse. 2018;4(3):10-17. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32603/2412-8562-2018-4-3-10-17

Views: 197


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2412-8562 (Print)
ISSN 2658-7777 (Online)