Socratic dialogue on responsible innovation – a methodological experiment in empirical ethics

IF 0.3 4区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS Etikk I Praksis Pub Date : 2023-01-17 DOI:10.5324/eip.v17i1.4950
B. Myskja, Alexander Myklebust
{"title":"Socratic dialogue on responsible innovation – a methodological experiment in empirical ethics","authors":"B. Myskja, Alexander Myklebust","doi":"10.5324/eip.v17i1.4950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article presents an experiment in using Socratic dialogue as a methodological approach to Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in an interdisciplinary life sciences research project. The approach seeks to avoid imposing a set of predetermined substantive norms by engaging the researchers in knowledge-seeking group discussions. We adapted Svend Brinkmann’s method of epistemic interviewing, in order to facilitate reflection on normative issues concerning responsibility in research and innovation in two research group sessions. Two elements characterize this approach, relating it to empirical ethics methodologies: (1) the aim is not to map and analyse opinions, but to develop knowledge based on the dialogue; and (2) the facilitators of the discussion are also active participants in the dialogue rather than mere “spectators”. Through a description of the approach and discussion of some key challenges, we show the method’s potential as a supplement to the catalogue of RRI approaches and argue that it serves a dual purpose of contributing to knowledge production and reflexivity.\nKeywords: Epistemic interviewing, bioethics, responsibility, reflexivity","PeriodicalId":42362,"journal":{"name":"Etikk I Praksis","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Etikk I Praksis","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5324/eip.v17i1.4950","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article presents an experiment in using Socratic dialogue as a methodological approach to Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in an interdisciplinary life sciences research project. The approach seeks to avoid imposing a set of predetermined substantive norms by engaging the researchers in knowledge-seeking group discussions. We adapted Svend Brinkmann’s method of epistemic interviewing, in order to facilitate reflection on normative issues concerning responsibility in research and innovation in two research group sessions. Two elements characterize this approach, relating it to empirical ethics methodologies: (1) the aim is not to map and analyse opinions, but to develop knowledge based on the dialogue; and (2) the facilitators of the discussion are also active participants in the dialogue rather than mere “spectators”. Through a description of the approach and discussion of some key challenges, we show the method’s potential as a supplement to the catalogue of RRI approaches and argue that it serves a dual purpose of contributing to knowledge production and reflexivity. Keywords: Epistemic interviewing, bioethics, responsibility, reflexivity
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
苏格拉底关于负责任创新的对话——经验伦理学的方法论实验
本文介绍了在一个跨学科生命科学研究项目中使用苏格拉底对话作为负责任研究与创新(RRI)的方法论方法的实验。这种方法试图通过让研究人员参与寻求知识的小组讨论来避免强加一套预先确定的实质性规范。我们采用了Svend Brinkmann的认知访谈方法,以便在两个研究小组会议中促进对研究和创新中责任的规范性问题的反思。这种方法有两个特点,与经验伦理学方法有关:(1)目的不是绘制和分析意见,而是在对话的基础上发展知识;(2)讨论的引导者也是对话的积极参与者,而不仅仅是“旁观者”。通过对方法的描述和对一些关键挑战的讨论,我们展示了该方法作为RRI方法目录的补充的潜力,并认为它具有促进知识生产和反思性的双重目的。关键词:认知访谈,生命伦理学,责任,反身性
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Etikk I Praksis
Etikk I Praksis Multiple-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Ethical challenges of social work in Spain during COVID-19 LGBTIQ+ prioritization in refugee admissions – The case of Norway Stakeholder Inclusion as the Research Council of Norway’s Silver Bullet Moral sensitivity, moral distress and moral functioning Nazism, Genocide and the Threat of The Global West. Russian Moral Justification of War in Ukraine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1