Role Concepts of Technology Assessment between Postulates of Neutrality and the Demand for Creating Impact
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2298/FID1903327GKeywords:
technology assessment, neutrality, impact, honest broker, issue advocate, transformationAbstract
Technology assessment (TA) has been evolving as a research-based and anticipatory field of scientific policy-advice for more than fifty years. Its position at the interface between science and policy-making has caused several debates on its adequate roles. Proposals reach from the position of a neutral and distant observer of ongoing developments up to taking an active role in transformation processes fueled by the technological advance, e.g. in favor of sustainable development. In this paper, several role concepts of TA will be discussed against the background of a new framework concept on technology assessment. It will be shown, that TA usually has to take the role of an Honest Broker in assessing new technologies as an umbrella role concept. The specific manifestations of this umbrella role, however, can vary from context to context. The role concept of the Honest Broker serves as an orientation to determine the more specific roles in the tension between assumed neutrality and the obligation to create impact.
References
Abels, Gabriele and Alfons Bora (2016), Ethics and Public Participation in Technology Assessment. DOI 10.13140/RG.2.2.35586.89282 (25-05-2019).
Bechtold, Ulrike, Daniela Fuchs and Niklas Gudowsky (2017), “Imagining Socio-Technical Futures: Challenges and Opportunities for Technology Assessment” Journal of Responsible Innovation (4)2: 85–99.
Beck, Ulrich, Arthur Giddens and Simon Lash (1994), Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bijker, Wiebe, Thomas Hughes and Trevor Pinch, (eds.) (1987), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technological Systems. Cambridge: MA, MIT Press.
Bimber, Bruce (1996), The Politics of Expertise in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment. New York: State University of New York Press.
Decker, Michael and Miltos Ladikas (eds.) (2004), Bridges between Science, Society and Policy: Technology Assessment: Methods and Impacts. Berlin: Springer.
Edenhofer, Otmar, and Martin Kowarsch (2015), “Cartography of Pathways: A New Model for Environmental Policy Assessments”, Environmental Science and Policy 51: 56–64.
Feenberg, Andrew (1995), Alternative Modernity. Los Angeles: University of California Press
Grunwald, Armin (2019a), Technology Assessment in Practice and Theory. London: Routledge.
–. (2019b), “The Inherently Democratic Nature of Technology Assessment”, Science & Public Policy, published online: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scz023.
–. (2013), “Techno-Visionary Sciences: Challenges to Policy Advice”, Science, Technology and Innovation Studies 9(2): 21–38.
–. (2006), “Scientific Independence as a Constitutive Part of Parliamentary Technology Assessment”, Science & Public Policy 33(2): 103–113.
Guston, David (2014), “Understanding ‘Anticipatory Governance’”, Social Studies of Science 44(2): 218–242.
Jasanoff, Sheila (1990), The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Joss, Simon and Sergio Bellucci (eds.) (2002), Participatory Technology Assessment: European Perspectives. London: Westminster University Press.
Luhmann, Niklas (1984), Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.(English: Social Systems, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1995.)
Michalek, Tomas, Lena Hebakova, Leo Hennen, Constanze Scherz, Linda Nierling and Julia Hahn (eds.) (2014), Technology Assessment and Policy Areas of Great Transitions. Prague: Technology Centre ASCR.
Owen, Richard, Joss Bessant and Martina Heintz (eds.) (2013), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. London, Wiley.
Paschen, Herbert and Thomas Petermann (1992), “Technikfolgenabschätzung – ein strategisches Rahmenkonzept für die Analyse und Bewertung von Technikfolgen”. In: Petermann, Thomas (ed.), Technikfolgen-Abschätzung als Technikforschung und Politikberatung. Frankfurt: Campus, pp. 19–42.
Petermann, Thomas, Harald Bradke, Arnd Lüllmann, Martin Poetzsch und Ulrich Riehm (2011), What Happens during a Blackout? Consequences of a Prolonged and Wide-Ranging Power Outage. Technology Assessment Studies Series – 4. BoD – Books on Demand: Norderstedt.
Petermann, Thomas (1992), “Weg von TA – aber wohin?” in Thomas Petermann (ed.), Technikfolgen-Abschätzung als Technikforschung und Politikberatung. Frankfurt: Campus, pp. 271–298.
Pielke, Roger (2010), “Expert Advice and the Vast Sea of Knowledge”, in Alex Bogner, Karen Kastenhofer and Helge Torgersen (eds.), Inter- und Transdisziplinarität im Wandel? Baden-Baden: NOMOS.
–. (2007), The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Renn, Ortwin, Thomas Webler and Peter Wiedemann (1995), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation, Springer: Boston.
Rip, Arie, Thomas Misa and Jan Schot (1995), Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Pinter Publishers.
Saretzki, Thomas (2015), “Habermas, Critical Theory and Public Policy” in Frank Fischer, Douglas Torgerson, Anna Durnová and Michael Orsini (eds.), Handbook of Critical Policy Studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 67–91
Sarewitz, Daniel (1996), Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology, and the Politics of Progress. Philadelphia: University Temple Press.
Scherz, Constanze, Tomas Michalek, Leo Hennen, Lena Hebakova, Julis Hahn and Stefanie Seitz (2015), The Next Horizon of Technology Assessment. Prague: Technology Centre ASCR.
Schot, Johan (1992), “Constructive Technology Assessment and Technology Dynamics: The Case of Clean Technologies”, Science, Technology and Human Values 17(1): 36–56.
Smits, Ruud and Jos Leyten (1991), Technology Assessment: Watchdog or Tracker, Zeist: Kerkebosch.
Stirling, Andy (2008), “Opening Up and Closing Down: Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology”, Science, Technology and Human Values, 33(2): 262–294.
Van den Hoven, Jeroen, Neelke Doorn, Tsjalling Swierstra, Bert-Jaap Koops, Henny Romijn (eds.) (2014), Responsible Innovation 1. Innovative Solutions for Global Issues, Dordrecht: Springer.
Vig, Norman and Herbert Paschen (eds.) (1999), Parliaments and Technology Assessment. The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Von Schomberg, Rene (2013), “A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation”, in: Owen, Richard, Joss Bessant, Martina Heintz (eds.), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. London: Wiley, pp. 51–70.
Webster, Andrew (2007), “Crossing Boundaries: Social Science in the Policy Room”, Science, Technology and Human Values 32: 458–478.
Wynne, Brian (1995), “Technology Assessment and Reflexive Social Learning: Observations from the Risk Field”, in Arie Rip, Thomas Misa, Jan Schot (eds), Managing Technology in Society. London: Pinter Publishers, pp. 19–36.
Bechtold, Ulrike, Daniela Fuchs and Niklas Gudowsky (2017), “Imagining Socio-Technical Futures: Challenges and Opportunities for Technology Assessment” Journal of Responsible Innovation (4)2: 85–99.
Beck, Ulrich, Arthur Giddens and Simon Lash (1994), Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bijker, Wiebe, Thomas Hughes and Trevor Pinch, (eds.) (1987), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technological Systems. Cambridge: MA, MIT Press.
Bimber, Bruce (1996), The Politics of Expertise in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment. New York: State University of New York Press.
Decker, Michael and Miltos Ladikas (eds.) (2004), Bridges between Science, Society and Policy: Technology Assessment: Methods and Impacts. Berlin: Springer.
Edenhofer, Otmar, and Martin Kowarsch (2015), “Cartography of Pathways: A New Model for Environmental Policy Assessments”, Environmental Science and Policy 51: 56–64.
Feenberg, Andrew (1995), Alternative Modernity. Los Angeles: University of California Press
Grunwald, Armin (2019a), Technology Assessment in Practice and Theory. London: Routledge.
–. (2019b), “The Inherently Democratic Nature of Technology Assessment”, Science & Public Policy, published online: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scz023.
–. (2013), “Techno-Visionary Sciences: Challenges to Policy Advice”, Science, Technology and Innovation Studies 9(2): 21–38.
–. (2006), “Scientific Independence as a Constitutive Part of Parliamentary Technology Assessment”, Science & Public Policy 33(2): 103–113.
Guston, David (2014), “Understanding ‘Anticipatory Governance’”, Social Studies of Science 44(2): 218–242.
Jasanoff, Sheila (1990), The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Joss, Simon and Sergio Bellucci (eds.) (2002), Participatory Technology Assessment: European Perspectives. London: Westminster University Press.
Luhmann, Niklas (1984), Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.(English: Social Systems, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1995.)
Michalek, Tomas, Lena Hebakova, Leo Hennen, Constanze Scherz, Linda Nierling and Julia Hahn (eds.) (2014), Technology Assessment and Policy Areas of Great Transitions. Prague: Technology Centre ASCR.
Owen, Richard, Joss Bessant and Martina Heintz (eds.) (2013), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. London, Wiley.
Paschen, Herbert and Thomas Petermann (1992), “Technikfolgenabschätzung – ein strategisches Rahmenkonzept für die Analyse und Bewertung von Technikfolgen”. In: Petermann, Thomas (ed.), Technikfolgen-Abschätzung als Technikforschung und Politikberatung. Frankfurt: Campus, pp. 19–42.
Petermann, Thomas, Harald Bradke, Arnd Lüllmann, Martin Poetzsch und Ulrich Riehm (2011), What Happens during a Blackout? Consequences of a Prolonged and Wide-Ranging Power Outage. Technology Assessment Studies Series – 4. BoD – Books on Demand: Norderstedt.
Petermann, Thomas (1992), “Weg von TA – aber wohin?” in Thomas Petermann (ed.), Technikfolgen-Abschätzung als Technikforschung und Politikberatung. Frankfurt: Campus, pp. 271–298.
Pielke, Roger (2010), “Expert Advice and the Vast Sea of Knowledge”, in Alex Bogner, Karen Kastenhofer and Helge Torgersen (eds.), Inter- und Transdisziplinarität im Wandel? Baden-Baden: NOMOS.
–. (2007), The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Renn, Ortwin, Thomas Webler and Peter Wiedemann (1995), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation, Springer: Boston.
Rip, Arie, Thomas Misa and Jan Schot (1995), Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Pinter Publishers.
Saretzki, Thomas (2015), “Habermas, Critical Theory and Public Policy” in Frank Fischer, Douglas Torgerson, Anna Durnová and Michael Orsini (eds.), Handbook of Critical Policy Studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 67–91
Sarewitz, Daniel (1996), Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology, and the Politics of Progress. Philadelphia: University Temple Press.
Scherz, Constanze, Tomas Michalek, Leo Hennen, Lena Hebakova, Julis Hahn and Stefanie Seitz (2015), The Next Horizon of Technology Assessment. Prague: Technology Centre ASCR.
Schot, Johan (1992), “Constructive Technology Assessment and Technology Dynamics: The Case of Clean Technologies”, Science, Technology and Human Values 17(1): 36–56.
Smits, Ruud and Jos Leyten (1991), Technology Assessment: Watchdog or Tracker, Zeist: Kerkebosch.
Stirling, Andy (2008), “Opening Up and Closing Down: Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology”, Science, Technology and Human Values, 33(2): 262–294.
Van den Hoven, Jeroen, Neelke Doorn, Tsjalling Swierstra, Bert-Jaap Koops, Henny Romijn (eds.) (2014), Responsible Innovation 1. Innovative Solutions for Global Issues, Dordrecht: Springer.
Vig, Norman and Herbert Paschen (eds.) (1999), Parliaments and Technology Assessment. The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Von Schomberg, Rene (2013), “A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation”, in: Owen, Richard, Joss Bessant, Martina Heintz (eds.), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. London: Wiley, pp. 51–70.
Webster, Andrew (2007), “Crossing Boundaries: Social Science in the Policy Room”, Science, Technology and Human Values 32: 458–478.
Wynne, Brian (1995), “Technology Assessment and Reflexive Social Learning: Observations from the Risk Field”, in Arie Rip, Thomas Misa, Jan Schot (eds), Managing Technology in Society. London: Pinter Publishers, pp. 19–36.
Downloads
Published
30.09.2019
How to Cite
Grunwald, A. (2019) “Role Concepts of Technology Assessment between Postulates of Neutrality and the Demand for Creating Impact”, Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society. Belgrade, Serbia, 30(3), pp. 327–342. doi: 10.2298/FID1903327G.
Issue
Section
TECHNIK – POLITIK – GESELLSCHAFT
License
Articles published in Philosophy and Society are open-access in accordance with the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 License.
