Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28275934›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2018

Organizing a Collaborative Development of Technological Design Requirements Using a Constructive Dialogue on Value Profiles: A Case in Automated Vehicle Development.

Steven M Flipse, Steven Puylaert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Steven M FlipseScience Education and Communication, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Delft University of Technology, Lorentzweg 1, 2628CJ, Delft, The Netherlands. s.m.flipse@tudelft.nl.
Steven PuylaertScience Education and Communication, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Delft University of Technology, Lorentzweg 1, 2628CJ, Delft, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following societal and policy pressures for responsible innovation, innovators are more and more expected to consider the broader socio-ethical context of their work, and more importantly, to integrate such considerations into their daily practices. This may require the involvement of 'outsiders' in innovation trajectories, including e.g. societal and governmental actors. However, methods on how to functionally organize such integration in light of responsible innovation have only recently started to emerge. We present an approach to do just that, in which we first develop value profiles of the involved actors, and second, design a workshop setting that allows innovators to develop design requirements in collaboration with representatives of parties that are not usually involved in such innovation design practices. Using a case study in automated vehicle development, we positively demonstrate the possibility and utility of our approach. We stress that in this study we wish to demonstrate the functionality of our developed method, and did not search for scientifically valid outcomes regarding this technical field.

Indexed as

CommunicationCooperative BehaviorSocial ResponsibilityStakeholder ParticipationAutomationEngineeringEthical AnalysisEthics, ResearchGovernmentGroup ProcessesHumansMoralsMotor VehiclesScienceSocial BehaviorSocial EnvironmentAutomated vehiclesCo-creationConstructive dialogueDesign requirementsResponsible innovation

Identifiers

PMID28275934
PMCPMC5799312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.