Technology has played a central role in development programming since the inception of development assistance. Recent development organizations, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, believe technological innovation can improve development outcomes. Development ethics, a field of study focused on the ethical questions posed by development policies and practices, has yet to fully appreciate the ethical dimensions of the science and technology. Addressing this important research and policy gap, we contend that science and technology studies (STS) offers important insights that can be used in combination with development ethics to influence development policies and practices. Utilizing a case study of a private development program in Uganda, we illustrate how STS offers important insights for understanding how a sociotechnical ensemble placed pressure on already scarce water resources. Two dimensions of STS scholarship, the power asymmetries of technological development and the incomplete or partial nature of technoscientific knowledge, are examined and help us to understand how sociotechnical ensembles in development increase the likelihood of the emergence of publics who are negatively impacted by sociotechnical ensembles in development programs. Leveraging STS insights, we argue for the importance of situated ethics—a pragmatic approach to ensuring responsiveness to the emergence of these publics.
Adu-AmpongE. A.AdamsE. A.. 2020. “‘But You Are also Ghanaian, You Should Know’: Negotiating the Insider–Outsider Research Positionality in the Fieldwork Encounter.” Qualitative Inquiry26 (2020): 583–92.
2.
BanksNicolaHulmeDavid. 2014. “New Development Alternatives or Business as Usual with a New Face? The Transformative Potential of New Actors and Alliances in Development AU.” Third World Quarterly35 (1): 181–95.
3.
BanksSarah. 2016. “Everyday Ethics in Professional Life: Social Work as Ethics Work.” Ethics and Social Welfare10 (1): 35–52.
4.
BauchspiesWenda K.2012. “The Community Water Jar: Gender and Technology in Guinea.” Journal of Asian and African Studies47 (4): 392–403.
5.
BijkerWiebe E.1997. Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
6.
BuschLawrence. 2009. “What Kind of Agriculture? What Might Science Deliver?” Natures Sciences Sociétés17 (3): 241–47.
7.
CallonMichelLawJohn. 1989. “On the Construction of Sociotechnical Networks: Content and Context Revisited.” Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Science Past and Present8 (1989): 57–83.
8.
CherletJan. 2014. “Epistemic and Technological in Determinism in Development Aid.” Science, Technology, & Human Values39 (6): 773–94.
9.
CrockerDavid A.2008. Ethics of Global Development: Agency, Capability, and Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
DeweyJohn. 1948. Reconstruction in Philosophy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
11.
DeweyJohn. (1927) 1991. The Public and its Problems. Athens: Swallo Press/Ohio University Press.
12.
DriessenClemensKorthalsMichiel. 2012. “Pig Towers and In Vitro Meat: Disclosing Moral Worlds by Design.” Social Studies of Science42 (6): 797–820.
13.
DrydykJay. 2016. “Ethical Issues in Development.” In The Palgrave Handbook of International Development, edited by GrugelJ.HammettD., 55–76. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
14.
DWD (Directorate of Water Development). 2017. Uganda Water Supply Atlas: Uganda National Report. Edited by Ministry of Water & Environment (MWE) and Directorate of Water Development (DWD). Kampala, Uganda: DWD.
EbrahimHasina Banu. 2010. “Situated Ethics: Possibilities for Young Children as Research Participants in the South African Context.” Early Child Development and Care180 (3): 289–98.
18.
EstalellaAdolfoArdèvolElisenda. 2007. “Field Ethics: Towards Situated Ethics for Ethnographic Research on the Internet.” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research8 (3): Article 2.
19.
FejerskovAdam Moe. 2017. “The New Technopolitics of Development and the Global South as a Laboratory of Technological Experimentation.” Science, Technology, & Human Values42 (5): 947–68.
20.
FergusonAnn. 1998. “Resisting the Veil of Privilege: Building Bridge Identities as an Ethico-politics of Global Feminisms.” Hypatia13 (3): 95–113.
21.
FrickelScottGibbonSahraHowardJeffKempnerJoannaOttingerGwenHessDavid J.. 2010. “Undone Science: Charting Social Movement and Civil Society Challenges to Research Agenda Setting.” Science, Technology, & Human Values35 (4): 444–73.
22.
GiwaA.2015. “Insider/Outsider Issues for Development Researchers from the Global South.” Geography Compass9 (6): 316–26.
23.
GoreCharles. 2013. “The New Development Cooperation Landscape: Actors, Approaches, Architecture.” Journal of International Development25 (6): 769–86.
24.
GouletDenis. 1989. The Uncertain Promise: Value Conflicts in Technology Transfer. New York: New Horizons Press.
JasanoffSheila. 2003. “Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science.” Minerva41 (3): 223–44.
33.
JasanoffSheila. 2016. The Ethics of Invention: Technology and the Human Future. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
34.
JenkinsGarry W.2011. “Who’s Afraid of Philanthrocapitalism.” Case Western Reserve Law Review61 (3): 753–822.
35.
KeulartzJozefSchermerMaartje. 2014. “A Pragmatist Approach to the Governance of Vulnerability.” In Vulnerability in Technological Cultures: New Directions in Research and Governance, edited by HommelsAniqueMesmanJessicaBijkerWiebe E., 285–304. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36.
KeulartzJozefSchermerMaartjeKorthalsMichielSwierstraTsjalling. 2004. “Ethics in Technological Culture: A Programmatic Proposal for a Pragmatist Approach.” Science, Technology, & Human Values29 (1): 3–29.
37.
KhandekarAalokBeumerKoenMamidipudiAnnapurnaSekhsariaPankajBijkerWiebe E.. 2017. “STS for Development.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by FeltUlrikeFouchéRayvonMillerClark A.Smith-DoerrLaurel, 665–93. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
MalavisiAnna. 2014. “The Need for an Effective Development Ethics.” Journal of Global Ethics10 (3): 297–303.
40.
MamoLauraFishmanJennifer R.. 2013. “Why Justice? Introduction to the Special Issue on Entanglements of Science, Ethics, and Justice.” Science, Technology, & Human Values38 (2): 159–75.
41.
MansuriGhazalaRaoVijayendra. 2013. Localizing Development: Does Participation Work?Washington, DC: World Bank.
42.
MarresNoortje. 2007. “The Issues Deserve More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy.” Social Studies of Science37 (5): 759–80.
43.
McGoeyLinsey. 2014. “The Philanthropic State: Market–State Hybrids in the Philanthrocapitalist Turn.” Third World Quarterly35 (9): 109–25.
44.
McHughNancy Arden. 2011. “More than Skin Deep: Situated Communities and Agent Orange in the Aluoi Valley, Vietnam.” In Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, edited by GrasswickHeidi, 183–203. New York: Springer.
45.
NussbaumMartha. 2002. “Capabilities and Social Justice.” International Studies Review4 (2): 123–35.
46.
OngAihwa. 2011. “Translating Gender Justice in Southeast Asia: Situated Ethics, NGOs, and Bio-welfare.” Hawwa9 (1): 26–48.
47.
OttingerGwen. 2013. “Changing Knowledge, Local Knowledge, and Knowledge Gaps.” Science, Technology, & Human Values38 (2): 250–70.
48.
PenzPeterDrydykJayBosePablo S.. 2011. Displacement by Development: Ethics, Rights and Responsibilities. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
49.
PerezTeresa Sandra. 2019. “In Support of Situated Ethics: Ways of Building Trust with Stigmatised ‘Waste Pickers’ in Cape Town.” Qualitative Research19 (2): 148–63.
50.
PrinsBaukje. 1995. “The Ethics of Hybrid Subjects: Feminist Constructivism According to Donna Haraway.” Science, Technology, & Human Values20 (3): 352–67.
51.
ReardonJenny. 2013. “On the Emergence of Science and Justice.” Science, Technology, & Human Values38 (2): 176–200.
RogersRobin. 2015. “Why the Social Sciences Should Take Philanthropy Seriously.” Society52 (6): 533–40.
54.
SchurmanRachel. 2018. “Micro(soft) Managing a ‘Green Revolution’ for Africa: The New Donor Culture and International Agricultural Development.” World Development112 (12): 180–92.
55.
ScoonesIan. 2016. “The Politics of Sustainability and Development.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources41 (1): 293–319.
56.
SenAmartya K.1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
57.
SlootsRon. 2010. Assessment of Groundwater Investigations and Borehole Drilling Capacity in Uganda. In The Republic of Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) & UNICEF. Kampala, Uganda: UNICEF.
58.
SmithAdrianStirlingAndy. 2010. “The Politics of Social-ecological Resilience and Sustainable Socio-technical Transitions.” Ecology and Society15 (1): 1–11.
59.
SmithAdrianStirlingAndyBerkhoutFrans. 2005. “The Governance of Sustainable Socio-technical Transitions.” Research Policy34 (10): 1491–510.
60.
SmithAdrianVoßJan-PeterGrinJohn. 2010. “Innovation Studies and Sustainability Transitions: The Allure of the Multi-level Perspective and Its Challenges.” Research Policy39 (4): 435–48.
61.
SmithDorothy E.1990. The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
62.
St. ClairAsunción Lera. 2010. “A Methodologically Pragmatist Approach to Development Ethics.” In Capabilities, Power, and Institutions, edited by EsquithStephen L.GiffordFred, 359–380. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Ul HaqMahbub. 1995. Reflections on Human Development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
66.
WilliamsonClaudia R.2010. “Exploring the Failure of Foreign Aid: The Role of Incentives and Information.” The Review of Austrian Economics23 (1): 17–33.
67.
WinnerLangdon. 1993. “Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology.” Science, Technology, & Human Values18 (3): 362–78.
World Bank. 2012. Global Monitoring Report 2012: Food Prices, Nutrition, and the Millennium Development Goals. Washington, DC: World Bank, International Monetary Fund.
