TA positions and TA storylines; towards a social constructionist framework of technology assessment

International Journal of Technology Management

Volumn 11, Issue 5-6, 1996, Pages 703-714

  Van Langenhove, Luk ^a   Berloznik, Robert ^b  

^a VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL   (Belgium)

^b FLEMISH INSTITUTE FOR TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH VITO   (Belgium)

Author keywords

R D management; Social constructionism; Technology Assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346142785     PISSN: 02675730     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Smits, R. and Leyten, J. (1991). Technology Assessment: Waakhond of Speurhond? Naar een integraal Technologiebeleid. Zeist: Kerkebosch BV.
2. Daey Ouwens , C. et al. (1987). Constructief Technologisch Aspecten Onderzoek. Den Haag: NOTA (V4).
3. Candaele, A. (1992). Constructieve Technology Assessment van Informatietechnologie. Een verkenning en integratieve invulling op inhoudelijk en methodologisch vlak. Brussels: unpublished BA thesis, Communication Science, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
4. For a review on parliamentary TA see Coenen, R. et al. (1991). Parlamentarische TA-Einrichtungen und ihre gegenwertige Themen. TA-Monitoring Bericht I, TAB-Arbeitsbericht 5/91. Karlsruhe: AFAS.
5. Maloney, J.D. (1982). 'How companies assess technology'. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 22, pp.321-329.
6. Furstenwerth, H. (1993). Technology Management and Technology Assessment in the Chemical Industry. Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Technology Assessment, Copenhagen 4th-7th November 1992, Copenhagen.
7. Van Boxel, J. (1992). The relevance of technology dynamics for the practice of constructive technology assessment. Unpublished paper. MERIT, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, Netherlands.
8. Greenwood, J.D. (1991). Relations and Representations: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Psychological Science. London: Routhledge.
9. See [8] and Harré, R. and Secord, P.F. (1972). The Explanation of Social Behaviour. Oxford: Blackwell.
10. Berger, P.L. and Luckman, T. (1971). The Social Construction of Reality. Harmondsworth, Penguin.
11. Harré, R. (1992). 'What's real in Psychology: A plea for persons', Theory and Psychology 2 (2), 153-158.
12. Gergen, K.J. (1985). 'The social contructionist movement in modern psychology, American Psychologist 40, 266-275.
13. Pinch, T.J. and Bijker, W.E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts; or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit from each other'. Social Studies of Science, 14, 399-441.
14. Knorr-Cetina, K.D. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
15. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
16. Bijker, W.E., Hughes, Th. P. and Pinch, T.J. (1987) The Social Construction of Technological Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology Cambridge: MIT Press.
17. Dierkes, M. and Hoffmann, U. (1992) New Technologies at the Outset. Social Forces in the Shaping of Technological Innovations, Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag.
18. Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge and Keagan Paul.
19. Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life. Los Angeles: Sage Publications
20. De Mey, M. (1982). The Cognitive Paradigm. Dordrecht: Reidel.
21. Woolgar, S. (1989). 'Representation, cognition and self: what hope for an integration of psychology and sociology'. In: Fuller, S. et al. (Eds), The Cognitive Turn: Sociological and Psychological Perspectives on Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
22. Davies, B. and Harré, R. (1990). 'Positioning: the discursive production of selves'. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 20 (1), 43- 63.
23. Harré, R. and Van Langenhove L. (1991). 'Varieties of positioning'. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 21, 393-407.