Assessing socially disruptive technological change

Technology in Society

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 209-218

  Carlsen, H ^a   Dreborg, K H ^a   Godman, M ^b   Hansson, S O ^b   Johansson, L ^b   Wikman Svahn, P ^a  

^a SWEDISH DEFENCE RESEARCH AGENCY   (Sweden)

^b ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Co evolution; Convergence seminars; Critical functions of society; Decision guidance; Disruptive technologies; Multiple expertise interaction; Scenario planning; Technical artifact; Technology assessment

Indexed keywords

CO-EVOLUTION; CONVERGENCE SEMINARS; CRITICAL FUNCTIONS; DECISION GUIDANCE; DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGY; MULTIPLE EXPERTISE INTERACTION; SCENARIO PLANNING; TECHNICAL ARTIFACTS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT;

BIOLOGY; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING;

TECHNOLOGY;

DECISION ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY; TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 77956925681     PISSN: 0160791X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2010.07.002     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Bondi H. Risk in perspective. Risk 1985, 9. Clarendon Press, Oxford. M.G. Cooper (Ed.).
2. Hansson S.O. The false promises of risk analysis. Ratio 1993, 6(1):16-26.
3. Hansson S.O. Economic (ir)rationality in risk analysis. Economics and Philosophy 2006, 22:231-241.
4. Einarsson S., Rausand M. An approach to vulnerability analysis of complex industrial systems. Risk Analysis 1998, 18(5):535-546.
5. Kroes P., Meijers M. The dual nature of technical artefacts - presentation of a new research programme. Techne 2002, 6(2):4-8.
6. Hansson S.O. Defining technical function. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 2006, 37(1):19-22.
7. Schumpeter J. Capitalism, socialism and democracy 1975, Harper and Row, New York. third ed.
8. Von Hippel E. The dominant role of the users in the scientific instruments innovation process. Research Policy 1976, 5(3):212-239.
9. Toumi I. Networks of innovation: change and meaning in the age of the internet 2002, Oxford University Press, New York.
10. Von Hippel E. Democratizing innovation 2005, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
11. Rogers E.M. Diffusion of innovations 2003, Free Press, New York. fifth ed.
12. Bower J., Christensen C. Disruptive technologies: catching the wave. Harvard Business Review 1995, 73(1):43-53.
13. Christensen C. The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail 1997, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
14. Christensen C., Raynor M. The innovator's solution: creating and sustaining successful growth 2003, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, p. 41.
15. Ropohl G. Ethik und technikbewertung 1996, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main.
16. Sustainability assessment of technologies. Workshop reports. Research Directorate General, Directorate 1 - Environment April 24-25 and June 14, 2007, European Commission, Brussels.
17. Rebitzer G., Ekvall T., Frischknecht R., Hunkeler D., Norris G., Rydberg T., Schmidt W.P., Suh S., Weidema B.P., Pennington D. Life cycle assessment (Part 1): Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environment International 2004, 30(5):701-720.
18. Pennington D., Potting J., Finnveden G., Lindeijer E.W., Jolliet O., Rydberg T., Rebitzer G. Life cycle assessment (part 2): current impact assessment practise. Environment International 2004, 30(5):721-739.
19. Jörgensen A., Le Bocq A., Nazarkina L., Hauschild M. Methodologies for social life cycle assessment-a review. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2008, 13(2):96-103.
20. Sanden A., Karlström M. Positive and negative feedbacks in consequential life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 2007, 15(15):1469-1481.
21. Klüver L, Nentwich M, Peissl W. Torgersen H, Gloede F, Hennen L, van Eijndhoven J, van Est J, Joss S, Belucci S, Bütschi D. European participatory technology assessment: Participatory methods in technology assessment and technology decision-making. Report to the European Commission; 2000. Available from: http://www.tekno.dk/europta.
22. UK Foresight Programme. Available from: http://www.foresight.gov.uk.
23. Strategic Policy Intelligence: Current Trends, The State of Play and Perspectives. Technical Report EUR-20137-EN 2002, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville. A. Tübke, K. Ducatel, J. Gavigan, P. Moncado-Paternò-Castello (Eds.).
24. Ringland G. Scenario Planning: Managing for The Future 2006, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. second ed.
25. Van der Heijden K. Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation 2005, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. second ed.
26. Robinson J. Energy backcasting: a proposed method for policy analysis. Energy Policy 1982, 10(4):337-344.
27. Dreborg K.H. Essence of backcasting. Futures 1996, 28(9):813-828.
28. Schummer J. Societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology: meanings, interest groups, and social dynamics. Techné 2004, 8(2):56-87.
29. Garcia M., Bray O. Fundamentals of technology roadmapping. Technical Report 1997, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.
30. Höjer M., Mattsson L.G. Determinism and backcasting in future studies. Futures 2000, 32(7):613-634.
31. Martino J.A. Review of selected recent advances in technological forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2003, 70(8):719-733.
32. International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors website. Available from: http://www.itrs.net.
33. Quantum information science and technology experts panel website. Available from: http://qist.lanl.gov.
34. Galvin G. Science roadmaps. Science 1998, 280(5365):803.
35. Huss W.R., Honton E.J. Scenario planning - what style should you use. Long Range Planning 1987, 20(4):21-29.
36. Bradfield R., Wright G., Burt G., Cirns G., van der Heijden K. The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long-range business planning. Futures 2005, 37(8):795-812.
37. Kahn H., Wiener A. The year 2000: a framework for speculation on the next thirty-three years 1967, Macmillan, New York.
38. Wack P. Scenarios, uncharted waters ahead. Harvard Business Review 1985, 63(5):73-89.
39. Wack P. Scenarios, shooting the rapids. Harvard Business Review 1985, 63(6):139-150.
40. Nakićenović N., et al. Emission scenarios. Special Report of Working Group III of The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
41. Eriksson E.A. Scenario-based methodologies for strategy development and management of change. Systems Approaches and Their Applications: Examples From Sweden 2004, Kluwer, Dordrecht. M.O. Olsson, G. Sjöstedt (Eds.).
42. Börjeson L., Höjer M., Dreborg K.H., Ekvall T., Finnveden G. Scenario types and techniques: towards a user's guide. Futures 2006, 38(7):723-739.
43. Burt G. Why are we surprised at surprises? Integrating disruption theory and system analysis with the scenario methodology to help identify disruptions and discontinuities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2007, 74(6):731-749.
44. Godman M., Hansson S.O. Public Advice on The Development of Nanobiotechnology. Final Report of Four European Convergence Seminars 2007, NanoBio-RAISE, Stockholm, Available from:. http://nanobioraise.org/groups/editors/menus/resources/50/view.
45. Hansson S.O. Hypothetical retrospection. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2007, 10(2):145-157.