↓ Skip to main content

Responsibility Ascriptions in Technology Development and Engineering: Three Perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, December 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
Title
Responsibility Ascriptions in Technology Development and Engineering: Three Perspectives
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, December 2009
DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9189-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Neelke Doorn

Abstract

In the last decades increasing attention is paid to the topic of responsibility in technology development and engineering. The discussion of this topic is often guided by questions related to liability and blameworthiness. Recent discussions in engineering ethics call for a reconsideration of the traditional quest for responsibility. Rather than on alleged wrongdoing and blaming, the focus should shift to more socially responsible engineering, some authors argue. The present paper aims at exploring the different approaches to responsibility in order to see which one is most appropriate to apply to engineering and technology development. Using the example of the development of a new sewage water treatment technology, the paper shows how different approaches for ascribing responsibilities have different implications for engineering practice in general, and R&D or technological design in particular. It was found that there was a tension between the demands that follow from these different approaches, most notably between efficacy and fairness. Although the consequentialist approach with its efficacy criterion turned out to be most powerful, it was also shown that the fairness of responsibility ascriptions should somehow be taken into account. It is proposed to look for alternative, more procedural ways to approach the fairness of responsibility ascriptions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 86 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 20%
Student > Master 15 17%
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Professor 4 4%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 19 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Philosophy 19 21%
Social Sciences 18 20%
Engineering 8 9%
Computer Science 4 4%
Energy 2 2%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 22 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 September 2019.
All research outputs
#13,978,562
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#619
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,255
of 170,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 170,962 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.