Search results

This paper analyses the justification of technological choices and options in the context of nuclear energy policy. We argue that “society” increasingly demands a justification with regard to the level of uncertainty and inequality a certain technological choice induces. We aim to demonstrate that policy makers in fact do address these issues, but depending on how they define the problem, this is done in a more explicit (overt) or implicit (covert) way.

First, the changing context with regard to the justification of technological choices is briefly sketched. We draw the attention to the link between the way a certain (energy) policy problem is defined, and the way the framework for political decision‐making is set up in response to the problem. In order to clarify this observation, we make use of a scheme derived from policy sciences, mapping out policy problems in two dimensions: the (lack of) certainty concerning the kinds of knowledge a problem may require, and the (lack of) consensus on relevant values (i.e. “the common good”, “basic rights”, etc.). Each type of policy problem requires a distinct solution strategy. A so‐called Type III‐error occurs when the wrong problem is solved by employing a strategy which does not apply to the problem at hand. In that case, political theory predicts strategic behavior in order to actively suppress or blur value differences. The Belgian decision to phase out nuclear power is used as a case study to illustrate some of the theoretical implications of the scheme.

Several Type III‐errors could be demonstrated in the case of the Belgian phase out. In this case, social learning was severely hampered by different methodological approaches; lack of data; different perceptions of relevant time scales; different framing of the problem; institutional barriers; lack of communication; strategic use of scientific assessments by different stakeholders; and insufficient knowledge of scientific assessments.

The paper aims to broaden the debate on energy policy outside the boundaries of institutional decision‐making. We conclude with some practical recommendations for future energy policy, regarding problem structuring, defining possible options, goal and strategy formulation and monitoring of choices.

The City of Copenhagen aims to become the first carbon neutral capital in the world by 2025. Ten per cent of the total CO2-reduction target is to be achieved through energy retrofitting of existing buildings in the city. This article reports from an action research study in the urban renewal section in Copenhagen City Council where planners struggle to promote more and better energy retrofitting projects in the urban renewal scheme. The study finds that planners in fact approach green retrofitting as a ‘wicked problem’ that requires new solution strategies targeting the complexity of developing new retrofitting standards and solutions in the existing urban renewal framework. The analysis shows how planners’ strategic responses are challenged by competing worldviews concerning the role of urban renewal and the problems and potentials of green retrofitting in practice.

The purpose of this article is to summarize three Luhmannian critiques on morality, illustrate new roles for morality and add constructive interpretations.

Luhmann has recently been described as downright negative toward morality, resulting in a refusal to use ethics as a sociologist, thus leading to a limited use of his theory in moral issues. A constructive interpretation could support a more functional use of morality in social system theory.

First, Luhmann signals that morality can no longer fulfill its integrative function in society but also that society has recourse to moral sensitivity. Second, Luhmann describes how anxiety is crucial in modern morality and indicates which role risk and danger could play. The author builds further on this and proposes the concept of “social system attention” that can provide answers to individual and organizational anxiety. The author proposes that institutionalized socialization can support an integrative morality. Third, Luhmann states that ethics today is nothing more than a utopia but also that the interdiction of moral self-exemption is an essential element. The author adds that a relational ontology for social systems theory can avoid ethics as utopia.

This article is a programmatic plea to further elaborate morality from a system theory perspective in which meaning is relationally positioned.

This article could potentially provide a more functional application of morality in social systems, thus leading to improvements of attempts of ethical decision-making. The originality of the approach lies in the interpretation of basic assumptions of Luhmann social system theory that are not core to his theory.

Challenge-based learning (CBL) is a trending educational concept in engineering education. The literature suggests that there is a growing variety in CBL implementations, stemming from the flexible and abstract definition of CBL that is shaped by teachers' perceptions. The chapter discusses how the CBL concept has been developed at Eindhoven University of Technology and describes the development and use of two educational resources aimed to facilitate conceptualization, design, and research of CBL for curriculum designers and teachers. The first resource is a set of CBL design principles for framing the variety of CBL and providing teachers with advice about how to develop CBL courses within an overall CBL curriculum. The second resource is a curriculum-mapping instrument called the CBL compass, which aims at mapping CBL initiatives and identifying gaps, overlaps, and misalignments in CBL implementation at a curriculum level. Both CBL design principles and the CBL compass have been developed by combining insights from theory and practical examples of CBL at TU/e into a higher order model of vision, teaching and learning, and support. We discuss the two educational instruments and showcase their application in the Eindhoven Engineering Education (E³) program, and we discuss preliminary findings and insights. The chapter concludes with recommendations for future practice and research.

[There are thousands of lists of books on special subjects, and nothing more is attempted here than to indicate the most useful. For other lists and bibliographies, reference must be made to the works in Section I. The catalogues of special libraries and the numerous lists of books on special subjects contributed to professional magazines must also be sought for there.]

The chapter presents the implementation of ethics education via challenge-based learning (CBL) in three European settings. At TU Eindhoven (the Netherlands), a mandatory first-year User, Society, and Enterprise course on the ethics and history of technology offers a CBL alternative on ethics and data analytics in collaboration with internal student and research teams. The University of Lübeck (Germany) initiated the project CREATE – Challenge-based Learning for Robotics Students by Engaging Start-Ups in Technology Ethics, which enables 60 students in Robotics and Autonomous Systems to integrate ethical and societal considerations into technological development processes, in cooperation with start-ups from a local accelerator. In Spain, CBI-Fusion Point brings together 40 students from business and law (ESADE), engineering and technology (Polytechnic University of Catalonia), and design (IED Barcelona Design University) for an innovation course focused on the application of CERN-developed technologies to real-world problems. The chapter documents the process of setting up three CBL courses that engage students with grand societal topics which require the integration of ethical concerns from the design stage of technological development. The authors also reflect on the challenges of teaching ethics via CBL and the lessons they learned by delivering experiential learning activities rooted in real-life challenges and contexts marked by high epistemic uncertainty. The contribution reflects the transition to remote teaching and presents strategies employed to enhance online communication and collaboration. The chapter thus provides guidance for instructors interested in teaching ethics via CBL and recommends further lines for action and research.

THE policy we announced at the outbreak of the war of making a speciality of the publication of translations of useful articles appearing in foreign—and more particularly German—technical publications has been amply justified by the endorsement it has received from numbers of readers; and we were particularly interested to hear it mentioned in an address by one of the leading scientists of this country as being probably the most useful service that a technical journal could contribute to the British cause at the present time. Our files show that since last September at least one (and in several months more than one) article from a foreign source has been a feature of each issue of AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING. At a time when it is manifestly difficult to publish up‐to‐date or new information regarding the products or manufacturing methods of the industry in England, which for obvious reasons it is not at present desirable to broadcast, it is clearly of interest to disseminate information regarding developments in other countries. This is, of course, merely an extension of the breadth of outlook on which we of AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING have always prided ourselves. We have never taken the narrow view that it was our metier merely to be a propagandist organ to publicise the quality of British products. We have always welcomed contributions, if of a sufficiently high standard, without regard to the country from which they emanated; believing that in so doing we were best serving the purpose for which we were established—to further the development of aeronautics by spreading the latest knowledge, as it becomes available, among all those working in the common cause. As in time of war individual workers in a belligerent country are of necessity cut off from communication not only with enemy but to a considerable extent with neutral or even allied countries, where there are fortunate ones, like ourselves, whose avocation puts them in an unusually favourable position to obtain information from abroad, it is manifestly their duty to seek out this information and disseminate it to the industry at large.

Challenge-based learning (CBL) has gained acceptance as a contemporary and progressive teaching pedagogy that provides a holistic and inclusive experience to learners in higher education (HE) institutions. However, its lack of appeal to non-STEM subjects and the need for further development, particularly concerning improved approaches, have been recognized. It seems that CBL runs the risk of becoming a portmanteau pedagogy that blends aspects of problem-based learning, project-based learning, and situated learning, as opposed to its development as an effective pedagogy tool. This points to a lack of a formal implementation framework, code of practice, and standard procedures for its delivery. We argue that blending a design thinking (DT) pedagogy with CBL can potentially provide the stability that CBL currently lacks. At the same time, it also presents a more inclusive proposition to potential non-STEM audiences. Thus, in this chapter, we seek to interrogate the intersectionality between CBL and DT literature in the context of HE teaching and learning with a view of establishing CBL as a pedagogy in its own right. We attempt to achieve this by systematically analyzing the separate literature to reveal the synergies and common touchpoints.