↓ Skip to main content

The Walkshop Approach to Science and Technology Ethics

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
Title
The Walkshop Approach to Science and Technology Ethics
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, February 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11948-014-9526-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fern Wickson, Roger Strand, Kamilla Lein Kjølberg

Abstract

In research and teaching on ethical aspects of emerging sciences and technologies, the structure of working environments, spaces and relationships play a significant role. Many of the routines and standard practices of academic life, however, do little to actively explore and experiment with these elements. They do even less to address the importance of contextual and embodied dimensions of thinking. To engage these dimensions, we have benefitted significantly from practices that take us out of seminar rooms, offices and laboratories as well as beyond traditional ways of working and interacting. We have called one such practice the 'walkshop'. Through walkshops, we have spent several days walking together with our colleagues and students in open outdoor spaces, keeping a sustained intellectual discussion on ethical aspects of science, technology and innovation while moving through these landscapes. For us, this has generated useful opportunities to escape established hierarchies, roles and patterns of thought and to rethink conceptual and philosophical issues from new perspectives, under new attitudes and with renewed energy. In this paper we wish to highlight the potential benefits of the walkshop approach by sharing some of our experiences and describing how we have prepared for and carried out these events. We share this information in the hope that we may encourage others to both experiment with the walkshop approach and exchange information on their own innovative processes for research and teaching in science and engineering ethics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Unknown 78 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 21%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 5 6%
Researcher 4 5%
Other 23 28%
Unknown 14 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 12 15%
Computer Science 8 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Environmental Science 5 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 5%
Other 24 30%
Unknown 22 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 July 2022.
All research outputs
#2,890,076
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#245
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,525
of 314,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#5
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.