Climate adaptation and resilience scholars are struggling to address distributive and procedural justice in climate resilience efforts. While the capability approach (CA) has been widely appraised as a suitable justice basis for this context, there are few detailed studies assessing this possibility. This paper addresses this gap by advancing discussions about the prospects of the CA for guiding justice work in climate resilience. With its emphasis on the final value and mutually irreducible character of the concrete beings and doings of individuals, we find the CA relevant for tackling salient aspects of adaptation, such as the multi-faceted and locally specific nature of climate vulnerability. We also present and discuss a capability application that has particular relevance for including distributive and procedural justice considerations in climate resilience. On the other hand, we find that extant arguments in support of the CA neglect the limitations of the CA and some dilemmas involved in applying it, also overestimating the differences between the CA and other justice approaches, especially those based on resources and needs. These problems lead us to advise against treating the CA as a one-size-fits-all solution to the ills of climate resilience and they further raise a need for joining efforts with complementary approaches.

@en

That there is a “crisis of peer review” at the moment is not in dispute, but sufficient attention has not yet been paid to the normative potential that lies in current calls for reform. In contrast to approaches to “fixing” the problems in peer review, which tend to maintain the status quo in terms of professionalising opportunities, this paper addresses the needs of philosophers and how peer-review reform can be an opportunity to improve the academic discipline of philosophy, whereby progress is understood as making the discipline more fair to the global academic community and more conducive to the flourishing of academic philosophers. The paper evaluates recent categories of relevant norms and correlating reforms. In conclusion, it recommends that philosophy pursue the norms of transparency and democracy explicitly when proposing peer-review reform and suggest that proposals for forum-based models of peer review are most likely to support those norms.

@en

This article contributes to recent work on justice in resilience-based projects for climate adaptation. At present, the model commonly used for guiding normative reflection in this domain is the tripartite model of justice, whereby justice is seen as comprising distributive, procedural and recognitional aspects. After discussing some conceptual problems and practical shortcomings of this model, we propose an alternative model with six forms of justice or kinds of justice demands: distributive, procedural, intergenerational, restorative and retributive justice, and justice in system outcomes. We also illustrate some advantages of this model with respect to representative accounts of the tripartite model.@en

The pragmatic view of urban resilience has re-framed long-lasting social issues as chronic social stresses that can be addressed by building strong social networks in urban environments. This practice, inspired by disaster management, is problematic because it presupposes a community whose members share the same fate. Conversely, social vulnerability emerges from the asymmetrical distribution of agency in the social order, so that a low social position jeopardises life chances. Hence, we argue that the social dimension in urban resilience should focus on the role of social positions and individuals’ agentic predispositions to control their life chances if faced with adversity (i.e., their Mastery). Using structural equation modelling and data from a 2018 public Dutch survey, we found that when mediated by Mastery, socioeconomic status drives the individual’s positive adaptation behaviour. In contrast, Interaction with Primary Networks, Neighbourhood Cohesion, and Membership in Voluntary Associations have an unsubstantial relationship to positive adaptation. These empirical results suggest that Mastery is crucial for people’s resilience in their daily life. In view of the recent shift towards negotiation in resilience thinking, we propose Mastery as the guiding factor for transforming arrangements that shape social positions.@en

The concept of serendipity or accidental discovery is typically discussed in the context of organizational research and development (RnD) through narratives involving ‘renegade iconoclasts’ laboring at the periphery. Recently, robust academic literature has emerged that grounds serendipity epistemologically. In the current work, this literature is introduced in the context of the typical activities of contemporary life science-focused RnD organizations. Practical patterns are described that can increase the likelihood of realizing accidental (serendipitous) RnD discoveries.@en

BACKGROUND: Prompted by recent shocks and stresses to health systems globally, various studies have emerged on health system resilience. Our aim is to describe how health system resilience is operationalised within empirical studies and previous reviews. We compare these to the core conceptualisations and characteristics of resilience in a broader set of domains (specifically, engineering, socio-ecological, organisational and community resilience concepts), and trace the different schools, concepts and applications of resilience across the health literature. METHODS: We searched the Pubmed database for concepts related to 'resilience' and 'health systems'. Two separate analyses were conducted for included studies: a total of n = 87 empirical studies on health system resilience were characterised according to part of health systems covered, type of threat, resilience phase, resilience paradigm, and approaches to building resilience; and a total of n = 30 reviews received full-text review and characterised according to type of review, resilience concepts identified in the review, and theoretical framework or underlying resilience conceptualisation. RESULTS: The intersection of health and resilience clearly has gained importance in the academic discourse with most papers published since 2018 in a variety of journals and in response to external threats, or in reference to more frequent hospital crisis management. Most studies focus on either resilience of health systems generally (and thereby responding to an external shock or stress), or on resilience within hospitals (and thereby to regular shocks and operations). Less attention has been given to community-based and primary care, whether formal or informal. While most publications do not make the research paradigm explicit, 'resilience engineering' is the most prominent one, followed by 'community resilience' and 'organisational resilience'. The social-ecological systems roots of resilience find the least application, confirming our findings of the limited application of the concept of transformation in the health resilience literature. CONCLUSIONS: Our review shows that the field is fragmented, especially in the use of resilience paradigms and approaches from non-health resilience domains, and the health system settings in which these are used. This fragmentation and siloed approach can be problematic given the connections within and between the complex and adaptive health systems, ranging from community actors to local, regional, or national public health organisations to secondary care. Without a comprehensive definition and framework that captures these interdependencies, operationalising, measuring and improving resilience remains challenging.

@en

This chapter looks closely at the use of resilience as a value in pandemic discourses, and particularly at how it reflects the moral complexity of the situation the pandemic presents: an extended crisis where shocks and stressors interact and have an uncertain end. We review key aspects of how resilience has been conceptualised, generally speaking, focusing on its normative implications. Insofar as resilience is suggested as a goal, or used to evaluate individuals, groups and systems, the rhetorical use of resilience in the pandemic has moral implications that we unpack. Asking questions such as resilience to what, of what, and for whom, drives our analysis of the multiple scales at which morally relevant factors must be considered, in terms of distance and certainty, and across space and over time. Further, we highlight the importance of particularly challenging, intersecting scales both within and beyond the pandemic, such as the interaction between other- and self-regarding concerns and the tension between transformation and conservation, as we consider when to take up opportunities for improving ourselves, our society and our systems, in times of extended crises and radical change. Given that a ‘return to normal’ is neither universally desirable nor likely, we recommend in this chapter ways to address resilience as a value that can shape approaches to policy and behaviour while also being explicit about the normative—evaluative and also prescriptive—implications of its use.@en

An increasingly popular solution to the anti-scientific climate rising on social media platforms has been the appeal to more critical thinking from the user’s side. In this paper, we zoom in on the ideal of critical thinking and unpack it in order to see, specifically, whether it can provide enough epistemic agency so that users endowed with it can break free from enclosed communities on social media (so-called epistemic bubbles). We criticise some assumptions embedded in the ideal of critical thinking online and, instead, we propose that a better way to understand the virtuous behaviour at hand is as critical engagement, namely a mutual cultivation of critical skills among the members of an epistemic bubble. This mutual cultivation allows members within an epistemic bubble (in contrast, as we will show, with the authority-based models of epistemic echo chambers) to become more autonomous critical thinkers by cultivating self-trust. We use the model of relational autonomy as well as resources from work on epistemic self-trust and epistemic interdependence to develop an explanatory framework, which in turn may ground rules for identifying and creating virtuous epistemic bubbles within the environments of social media platforms.@en

This chapter explores ignorance that relates to our ability to fully understand our own role in an epistemic community, specifically in relation to the roles of others. It is an explicitly social approach to ignorance, to the ignorance that shapes our relationships with others, and constrains our ability to know, requiring us to trust. This ignorance is embodied within our relations with one another as epistemic agents; it exists in the space between. Focussing in particular on the ways we regularly extend our cognition by depending on others (or on our tools) to perform steps in our cognitive labour on our behalf, I use an account from relational autonomy theory in feminist bioethics to examine the importance of reliability and its complements, trust and self-trust in these relationships. Further, I look to how such relationships can either cultivate or hinder our epistemic agency and the agency of others, particularly in contexts where there is potential for oppression or collaboration, exploitation or intimacy.@en

Current trends in serendipity research and collaborative ethics point to the importance of cultivating bottom-up approaches to designing for datafication in urban centers. The focus on pattern recognition in big scale data analysis, combined with an exponential growth in and infrastructural support of ubiquitous information and communication technologies (ICIs), has led to concerns about whether smart cities will turn urban environments into sites that leave little space for diverse and unplanned encounters. We take the position that smart cities need to take citizen agency into account and explain how to conceive the smart city in terms of serendipitous opportunity and community engagement. We do this by elaborating on the idea of situated serendipity, and how this kind of serendipity is co-constructed by technologies, citizens, and the urban setting. We subsequently present a methodology in line with recent work with sensory ethnography, to better understand the meaning and value of serendipity in the smart city. Ultimately, we propose a new way to imagine the ‘living lab’ as a cultivator of serendipity, through techniques developed in the fields of design, innovation, improvisation, citizen science and participatory ethics.@en

While resilience is a major concept in development, climate adaptation, and related do-mains, many doubts remain about how to interpret this term, its relationship with closely overlap-ping terms, or its normativity. One major view is that, while resilience originally was a descriptive concept denoting some adaptive property of ecosystems, subsequent applications to social contexts distorted its meaning and purpose by framing it as a transformative and normative quality. This article advances an alternative philosophical account based on the scrutiny of C.S. Holling’s original work on resilience. We show that resilience had a central role among Holling’s proposals for re-forming environmental science and management, and that Holling framed resilience as an ecosys-tem’s capacity of absorbing change and exploiting it for adapting or evolving, but also as the social ability of maintaining and opportunistically exploiting that natural capacity. Resilience therefore appears as a transformative social-ecological property that is normative in three ways: as an intrinsic ecological value, as a virtue of organizations or management styles, and as a virtuous understanding of human–nature relations. This interpretation accounts for the practical relevance of resilience, clar-ifies the relations between resilience and related terms, and is a firm ground for further normative work on resilience.

@en

Designing Systems for Informed Resilience Engineering’ (DeSIRE) is an extensive interdisciplinary research programme that shapes the 4TU Centre for Resilience Engineering (4TU RE Centre) and builds its capacity. Our understanding of resilience goes beyond robustness of infrastructure; we focus on resilience as the ability of coupled social-technical-environmental (STE) systems to absorb, react, recover, adapt and reorganize with change. Our mission is to advance and consolidate the understanding of resilience thinking, measuring resilience, and resilience coordination and governance. This mission statement conveys the 4TU RE community approach to resilience and the premises upon which this approach makes a difference.@en

From the philosophical perspective presented in the first part of this book, together with the clinical application of this framework in the second part, it follows that we must change the way we approach causal evidence of health and illness conceptually, methodologically and practically. This has some practical consequences for the clinical encounter, as discussed throughout the book. We here offer some specific CauseHealth recommendations for making causal evidence more clinically relevant and better informed by the clinical encounter. The recommendations follow from an overall consideration of the previous chapters, both the philosophical framework and its clinical implications.

@en

More than any other facet of resilience, social resilience raises the inherent tension within the concept between identity or persistence, and transformation. Is a community the people who make it up, or the geography or physical infrastructure they share? What about the resilience of communities that transform, as a result of a sudden disaster or over time? In this paper, we explore the impact of this tension on how social resilience indicators can be developed and used. Beginning with a close look at the ways in which our concepts of resilience and our use of indicators interact, several points are raised. First, that how we identify a community and frame its resilience conveys particular conceptualisations of resilience, which in turn have normative implications for the communities themselves. In part, this is because of the difficulty in capturing important adaptations and transformative actions within and by those communities. Further, measuring and comparing the resilience of communities, and aspects of quantification that go along with selecting, aggregating and comparing indicator values, ensure that the decisions made about how indicators ought to be used carry normative weight. Through this exploration, we identify several normative implications of choices in indicator design and application. We conclude with recommendations for moving forward with greater transparency and responsibility toward those communities whose social resilience we hope to measure in order to improve.

@en

De gedragscode geeft richting aan alle leden van de TU Delft-gemeenschap, door aan te geven wat de beste manieren zijn om te handelen, te reageren op mogelijke integriteitskwesties, en respectvol met elkaar, onze wereld en het milieu om te gaan.@en

The Code of Conduct gives direction to all members of the TU Delft community on how to act, how to respond to integrity-related issues, and how to maintain a high level of respect for each other, for our world and for the environment.@en

This chapter looks at one of the key problems experienced by practitioners of medicine today, especially in large or public institutions, which is how to handle guidelines. Public management approaches to medicine tend to promote guidelines as rules to follow, and clinicians often feel pressure to follow a guideline even when their judgment cautions them to do otherwise. This ‘tramline’ approach to guidelines, we show, is philosophically as well as practically problematic. Especially when we take dispositions as the ontology of the causal relations that guidelines want to key in on—the best way to cause a recovery, or to counteract the causes of a condition—we see that guidelines cannot and ought not be treated as rules to be followed. We thus also make suggestions in this chapter about what kinds of guidelines, in terms of form and function, might be ideal.@en

From the early days of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), luck has played the role of an antagonist to responsibility: responsible innovation is, in part, an effort to control for the possible negative effects of luck–the chance that chance itself will take our technologies in directions that we would rather avoid. If we are to have innovations that are socially desirable and ethically acceptable, it seems, we must prevent bad luck by controlling for uncertainty wherever we can. This control-based approach has, however, proven to be impossible, with consequences for the practice of research, for the institutions that fund and guide research directions, and for how we as a society conceive of the potential for responsible research to deal well with the uncertainties of our contemporary and future world. This special issue of the Journal of Responsible Innovation tackles the relationship between responsibility and luck head on, with authors providing assessments and potential solutions for the problems that luck creates, for how researchers conceive of their own responsibilities, how institutions can be more responsible toward research itself, and how we can take luck up into our innovation practices in a productive way.

@en