Anthonie Meijers

Editorial Introduction: Putting the Empirical Turn into Perspective

About 15 years ago, Peter Kroes and Anthonie Meijers published as editors a collection of papers under the title The empirical turn in the philosophy of technology (Kroes and Meijers 2000). Next to containing several examples of the kind of studies the editors had in mind, the book made an ardent plea for a reorientation of the community of philosophers of technology toward the practice of technology and, more specifically, the practice of engineering, and sketched the likely benefits for the field of pursuing the major questions that characterize it in an empirically informed way.

Philosophy of technology after the empirical turn

This volume features 16 essays on the philosophy of technology that discuss its identity, its position in philosophy in general, and the role of empirical studies in philosophical analyses of engineering ethics and engineering practices. This volume is published about fifteen years after Peter Kroes and Anthonie Meijers published a collection of papers under the title The empirical turn in the philosophy of technology, in which they called for a reorientation toward the practice of engineering, and sketched the likely benefits for philosophy of technology of pursuing its major questions in an empirically informed way. The essays in this volume fall apart in two different kinds. One kind follows up on The empirical turn discussion about what the philosophy of technology is all about. It continues the search for the identity of the philosophy of technology by asking what comes after the empirical turn. The other kind of essays follows the call for an empirical turn in the philosophy of technology by showing how it may be realized with regard to particular topics. Together these essays offer the reader an overview of the state of the art of an empirically informed philosophy of technology and of various views on the empirical turn as a stepping stone into the future of the philosophy of technology.

Toward an Axiological Turn in the Philosophy of Technology

In this paper we discuss a follow-up step of the empirical turn that we refer to as an “axiological turn” in the philosophy of technology. For a clear understanding of this follow-up step it is of crucial importance to distinguish between values at the level of the object of study, that is, values in technology and engineering practice, and values at the meta-level, that is, values in the philosophy of technology. We argue that a study of the role of values in technology and engineering practice may be conducted in line with our original call for an empirical turn. This is what we refer to as a descriptive axiological turn; it focusses on an empirically informed philosophical analysis of all kinds of values and norms in technology and engineering practice. Our call for a descriptive axiological turn is in essence nothing more than an amendment on the call for an empirical turn. By contrast a normative axiological turn in the philosophy of technology goes beyond the empirical turn; it not only describes and analyses but also evaluates the norms and values in technology and engineering practice. In other words, a normative axiological turn involves taking a normative stance at the (meta-)level of the philosophical analysis itself. Two forms of normative axiological turns are discussed, a reflective and a substantive one, as well as some of the problems and challenges that an implementation of a normative axiological turn will have to face. Finally, we also discuss how recent developments in the philosophy of technology that call for an active role of philosophers of technology in technology development fit into this distinction between a descriptive and normative axiological turn and under what conditions a normative axiological turn may be made.

Competencies in Higher Education: Experience with the Academic Competences and Quality Assurance (ACQA) Framework

The ACQA framework has been developed at the Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) as an alternative to the European Dublin Descriptors. Its goals were a characterisation of academic education, a detailed description of competencies, adding design competencies, and a sensibility for differences between disciplines.