Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Creative Anticipatory Ethical Reasoning with Scenario Analysis and Design Fiction

  • Original Research/Scholarship
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents an experimental approach for engaging undergraduate STEM students in anticipatory ethical reasoning, or ethical reasoning applied to the analysis of potential mid- to long-term implications and outcomes of technological innovation. The authors implemented two variations of an approach that integrates three key components—scenario analysis, design fiction, and ethical frameworks—into five sections of an introductory course on the social contexts of science and technology that is required of STEM majors. The authors dub this approach Creative Anticipatory Ethical Reasoning, or CAER. Scenario analysis is a strategy emerging from business consulting for grounded analysis of plausible future trajectories to inform planning. Design fiction is a creative hands-on activity that blends science fiction and design prototyping to facilitate critical thinking with respect to the societal dimensions of a plausible future technology. The authors present the following findings: in each of the variations, students demonstrated significant engagement with CAER and a substantive shift in their conception of what constitutes responsible innovation and ethical conduct in science and technology. Specifically, their integration of ethical reasoning with stakeholder perspectives and scenario analysis reframed technologies, from unproblematic solutions for societal problems to socially-embedded forms of life that might diverge from designers’ intentions. This suggests that CAER could be a useful pedagogical intervention for expanding students’ ethical engagement to consider the potential unintended consequences of technological innovation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is distinct from though obviously related to the practice of incorporating scenarios into a class to facilitate ethics discussions, as described by Joyce et al. (2018). In that case, scenarios presenting ethical dilemmas are presented to students to encourage recognition of how values are embedded in algorithms, for example. We value this approach as well. Here, by contrast, students are generating scenarios, and the focus tends to be oriented toward ethical questions that may not be easily recognizable as ethical dilemmas.

  2. See Rebecca Rosen’s interview with Dan Novy and Sophia Brueckner for another example of engaging science fiction and prototyping into STEM pedagogy at MIT (Rosen 2013).

  3. Students’ names in this section were coded using bird names from an Audubon list.

References

  • Adam, B., & Groves, C. (2011). Futures tended: Care and future-oriented responsibility. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 31(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467610391237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, V., Murphy, M., & Clarke, A. E. (2009). Anticipation: Technoscience, life, affect, temporality. Subjectivity, 28(1), 246–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., et al. (2018). The moral machine experiment. Nature, 563(7729), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barad, K. (2000). Reconceiving scientific literacy as agential literacy: Or, learning how to intra-act responsibly within the world. In R. Reid & S. Traweek (Eds.), Doing science + culture (Vol. viii, p. 339). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C., & Guston, D. (2008). Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In E. Hackett, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 979–1000). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartsch, R. A. (2013). Designing SoTL studies—Part II: practicality. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2013(136), 35–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, M. (2017). Why waiting for perfect autonomous vehicles may cost lives. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation Blog.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, F., Fletcher, G., Greenhill, A., Griffiths, M., & McLean, R. (2013). Science fiction prototypes: Visionary technology narratives between futures. Futures, 50, 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, R., Diebel, M. W., Gilroy, D., Kamarainen, A. M., Kornis, M. S., Preston, N. D., et al. (2010). Preparing for the future: Teaching scenario planning at the graduate level. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(5), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1890/080075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, W. (2017). Constructing Worlds: Reflections on science, technology and democracy (and a plea for bold modesty). Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 3, 315–331. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2017.170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleecker, Julian. 2009. “Design Fiction: A Short Essay on Design, Science, Fact and Fiction.” Near Future Laboratory, no. March: 49. Retrieved July 13, 2020, from http://www.nearfuturelaboratory.com/2009/03/17/design-fiction-a-short-essay-on-design-science-fact-and-fiction/.

  • Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2016). The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, 352(6293), 1573–1576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, K. (2015). To see the world anew: Learning engineering through a humanistic lens. Engineering Studies, 7(2–3), 206–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2015.1062506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggle, A., Holbrook, J., Oppong, J., Hoffmann, J., Larsen, E., & Pluscht, P. (2016). Research ethics education in the STEM disciplines: The promises and challenges of a gaming approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9624-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi, M. (2004). Science in society: An introduction to social studies of science. Science in society: An introduction to social studies of science. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203299739.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, T. (2002). Division by zero, stories of your life and others. New York: Tor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cline, E. (2011). Broadway paperbacks. New York: Ready Player One.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. M., & Pinch, T. J. (1998). The golem at large : What you should know about technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Laet, M., & Mol, A. (2000). The Zimbabwe bush pump: Mechanics of a fluid technology. Social Studies of Science, 30(2), 225–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downey, G. L. (2015). Opening up engineering formation. Engineering Studies, 7(2–3), 217–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2015.1121612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26(6), 485–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (2016). Sandra harding: On standpoint theory’s history and controversial reception. uploaded by Villanova University. Retrieved July 13, 2020, from https://youtu.be/xOAMc12PqmI.

  • Hess, J. L., & Fore, G. (2018). A systematic literature review of US engineering ethics interventions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(2), 551–583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9910-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubball, H., & Clarke, A. (2010). Diverse methodological approaches and considerations for SoTL in higher education. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2016). The Ethics of Invention: Technology and the Human Future. The Norton Global Ethics Series. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. (1993). Moral imagination: Implications of cognitive science for ethics (Vol. 105). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. (2011). Software agents, anticipatory ethics, and accountability. In G. E. et al. (ed.), The growing gap between emerging technologies and legal-ethical oversight. Merchant, The Intern. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1356-7_5.

  • Joyce, K. A., Darfler, K., George, D., Ludwig, J., & Unsworth, K. (2018). Engaging STEM ethics education. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 4, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2018.221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kressel, M. (2013). The sounds of old earth. Lightspeed Magazine, 32. Retrieved July 13, 2020, from https://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/fiction/the-sounds-of-old-earth/.

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Le Guin, U. K. (1989). Carrier bag theory of fiction. In Dancing at the edge of the world: Thoughts on words, women, places. (1st edn).

  • Levinson, B. A., Foley, D. E., & Holland, D. C. (1996). The cultural production of the educated person : Critical ethnographies of schooling and local practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, P., & Van De Poel, I. (2008). Designing Games to Teach Ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 433–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9077-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, E. (1991). The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male–female roles. Signs Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16(3), 485–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, M. (2008). Navigating the SoTL landscape: A compass, map and some tools for getting started. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 2(2), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, M. L., Albon, S. P., & Hubball, H. (2015). Case study methodology: Flexibility, rigour, and ethical considerations for the scholarship of teaching and learning. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(3), 12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley, D. (2003). Employing liberative pedagogies in engineering education. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9, 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivera, A. (2008). SleepdDealer. USA, Mexico.

  • Rosen, R. J. (2013).Why today’s inventors need to read more science fiction. The Atlantic, 1–12. Retrieved July 13, 2020, from http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/09/why-todays-inventors-need-to-read-more-science-fiction/279793/.

  • Selin, C. (2011). Negotiating plausibility: Intervening in the future of nanotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 723–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9315-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation”. Research Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 17, 273–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunder, R. K. (2006). Biocapital: The constitution of postgenomic life. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thune, J. (U.S. Senator, Commerce Committee Chairman). (2018). Driving automotive innovation and federal policies.

  • Wade, W. (2012). Scenario planning: A field guide to the future. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walling, O. (2015). Beyond ethical frameworks: Using moral experimentation in the engineering ethics classroom. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(6), 1637–1656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9614-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winner, L. (2004). Technologies as forms of life. In Kaplan, D. (eds.), Readings in the philosophy of technology (pp. 103–113). http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Nature_Technology_and_Society_Fall_2010/Winner_Ttechnologies_as_Forms_of_Life.pdf.

  • York, E. (2015). Smaller is better? Learning an ethos and worldview in nanoengineering education. NanoEthics, 9(2), 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted with the financial support of James Madison University’s Accelerating Creative Teaching grant. We would like to thank our Department Head Dr. Linda Thomas, our Dean Dr. Bob Kolvoord, and our Associate Dean Dr. Jeffrey Tang, for their support of this project and the STS Futures Lab that has emerged from this research. Additionally, we would like to thank our student participants. Finally, we greatly appreciate our reviewers' comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Integrated Sciences, James Madison University, 702 Carrier Drive MSC 4302, Harrisonburg, VA, 22807, USA

    Emily York

  2. School of Integrated Sciences, James Madison University, 701 Carrier Drive MSC 4102, Harrisonburg, VA, 22807, USA

    Shannon N. Conley

Authors
  1. Emily York
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shannon N. Conley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily York.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

This research was conducted with Institutional Review Board approval, protocol 19-0028 “Facilitating Ethical Reasoning in Undergraduate STEM Contexts: Responsible Innovation and Emerging Technologies”.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

York, E., Conley, S.N. Creative Anticipatory Ethical Reasoning with Scenario Analysis and Design Fiction. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 2985–3016 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00253-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00253-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation