I.R. (Ibo) van de Poel

Modeling engineering systems as socio-technical systems

The IEEE standard for the systems engineering process is problematic when applied to the design of (socio-technical) systems. This is argued using examples of automated vehicle systems. A conceptualization of socio-technical systems is introduced. This distinguishes technical and social elements and agents, as well as four kinds of relations. Next to physical and functional relations, intentional and normative relations play an important role. The IEEE standard defines social elements as contextual and focuses on total design control. Because of the involvement of agents and social elements in socio-technical systems both these viewpoints are problematic.

Technological Regimes: Taking stock, looking ahead

This concluding contribution to the special issue on technological regimes discusses specific strengths and weaknesses of the regime concept and their implications for further conceptual and theoretical work as well as for empirical studies employing the regime concept. Four issues are addressed: the idea that technological regimes are rule-sets, the explanatory power of technological regimes, the empirical and conceptual boundaries of technological regimes and the dynamics of technological regime shifts or transformations.

Technology and Parental Responsibility: The Case of the V-Chip

In this paper, the so-called V-chip is analysed from the perspective of responsibility. The V-chip is a technological tool used by parents, on a voluntary basis, to prevent children from watching violent television content. Since 1997 in the United States, the V-chip is installed in all new televisions sets of 12″ and larger. We are interested in the question whether and how the introduction of the V-chip affects who is to be considered responsible for children. In the debate, it has been argued that the V-chip reduces parents’ responsibility for children, but it has also been argued that it gives parents a tool to exercise their responsibility. It may appear as though all debaters are discussing the same thing and merely have different opinions. However, we argue that there are at least three notions of responsibility underlying these claims and that these should be kept separate. First, arguments on responsibility may refer to responsibility as task distribution. Second, they can refer to responsibility as control. Finally, a thicker concept of parental responsibility understood as a virtue may be referred to. It becomes clear that whereas task distribution changes to some extent and the possibilities for control are increased, only certain parts of parental responsibility as a virtue are affected. The finding that there appear to be different notions of responsibility involved in a debate that prima facie is about one issue, indicates that discussions on other technologies and how they affect responsibility may suffer from the same conceptual lack of clarity.