Abstract
In the previous chapter I outlined a series of specifically formulated methodological tools to encourage reflection and deliberation on ethical issues in a real world decision-making context. My critique of these approaches has been both philosophical and practical in nature. In the case of the Ethical Matrix (EM) and Ethical Grid (EG) the constraints are based primarily upon their format. Matrix and grid structures inhibit the identification of a broad range of relevant public actors, stakeholders, environments, ethical principles and socio-technical concerns because these methods limit both the quantity of such factors for discussion, and in some cases, constrain the choice of these elements without sufficient meta-ethical justification.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bowen, S.A.: A Practical Model for Ethical Decision Making in Issues Management and Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research 17(3), 191–216 (2005)
Burgess, J., Clark, J.: Evaluating public and stakeholder engagement strategies in environmental governance. In: Peirez, A.G., Vas, S.G., Tognetti, S. (eds.) Interfaces Between Science and Society. Greenleaf Press, London (2006)
Burgess, J., Stirling, A., Clark, J., Davies, G., Eames, M., Staley, K., Williamson, S.: Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions. Public Understanding of Science 16(3), 299–322 (2007)
ERC. 2004. PLUS - A Process for Ethical Decision Making (2004), http://www.ethics.org/plus_model.htm (accessed December 01, 2004)
Fischhoff, B.: Value elicitation: Is there anything in there? American Psychologist 46, 835–847 (1991)
Fischhoff, B., Welch, N., Frederick, S.: Construal processes in preference elicitation. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, 139–164 (1999)
Fishkin, J.: The Voice of the People. Yale University Press, New Haven (1995)
Fishkin, J.S., Luskin, R.C., Jowell, R.: Deliberative polling and public consultation. National Centre for Social Research 53(4) (2000)
Forester- Miler, H., Davis, T.: A Practitioner’s Guide to Ethical Decision Making (1996) http://www.counseling.org/docs/ethics/practitioners_guide.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed September 10, 2012)
Goodin, R.E., Niemeyer, S.J.: When Does Deliberation Begin? Internal Reflection versus Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy. Political Studies 51(4), 627–649 (2003), doi:10.1111/j.0032-3217.2003.00450.x
Gregory, R., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P.: Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7, 177–197 (1993)
Jones, T.M.: Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model. The Academy of Management Review 16(2), 366–395 (1991)
Latour, B.: We have never been modern. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead (1993)
Lowndes, V., Stoker, G., Pratchett, D., Wilson, D., Leach, S., Wingfield, M.: Enhancing public participation in local government: A research report. Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, London (1998)
Marshall, J.: An Ethical Decision-Making Model: Five Steps of Principled Reasoning (1999), http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_5step.html (accessed)
McElroy, B., Mills, C.: Managing stakeholders. In: Turner, R.J., Simister, S.J. (eds.) Gower Handbook of Project Management, pp. 757–777. Gower Publishing Limited (2000)
Nijkamp, P.: Multicriteria analysis: a decision support system for sustainable environmental management. In: Archibugi, F., Nijkamp, P. (eds.) Economy and Ecology: Towards Sustainable Development. Kluwer, London (1989)
Potter, R.B.: The origins and applications of “Potter Boxes”. In: State of the World Forum. San Francisco, CA (1999)
Rowe, G., Frewer, L.J.: Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values 25(1), 3–29 (2000)
Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Pidgeon, N.: Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? public debate about transgenic crops. Public Understanding of Science 14, 331–352 (2005)
Smith, G., Wales, C.: Citizens’ Juries and Deliberative Democracy. Political Studies Review 48(1), 51–65 (2000)
Stirling, A., Mayer, S.: A Novel Approach to the Appraisal of Technological Risk: a Multi-Criteria Mapping Study of a Genetically Modified Crop. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19(4), 529–555 (2001)
Thomson, A.: Critical Reasoning in Ethics: a practical introduction. Routledge, London (1999)
Van-Hoose, W.H.: Ethics and counseling. Counseling & Human Development 13(1), 1–12 (1980)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cotton, M. (2014). Reflective Ethical Mapping. In: Ethics and Technology Assessment: A Participatory Approach. Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, vol 13. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45088-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45088-4_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-45087-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-45088-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)