Embracing variety: introducing the inclusive modelling of (Parliamentary) technology assessment

Journal of Responsible Innovation

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 292-313

  Ganzevles, Jurgen ^a   van Est, Rinie ^b   Nentwich, Michael ^c  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^b Rathenau Institute KNAW   (Netherlands)

^c ERICH SCHMID INSTITUTE OF MATERIALS SCIENCE   (Austria)

Author keywords

interaction models; PACITA; parliaments; technology assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84968730116     PISSN: 23299460     EISSN: 23299037     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2014.968439     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Bimber, B. 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.
2. Blair, P. D., 2014. “Congress's Own Think Tank: Learning from the Legacy of the Office of Technology Assessment (1972–95).” Science and Public Policy 41 (4): 449–457. doi: 10.1093/scipol/sct057
3. Bütschi, D., R., Carius, M., Decker, S., Gram, A., Grunwald, P., Machleidt, S., Steyaert, and R., van Est. 2004. “The Practice of TA; Science, Interaction and Communication.” In Bridges between Science, Society and Policy: Technology Assessment–Methods and Impacts, edited by M., Decker and M., Ladikas, 13–55. Berlin: Springer.
4. Cruz-Castro, L., and L., Sanz-Menéndez. 2005. “Politics and Institutions: European Parliamentary Technology Assessment.” Technological Forecasting & Social Change 72 (5): 429–448. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2004.01.007
5. Decker, M., and M., Ladikas, eds. 2004. Bridges between Science, Society and Policy. Technology Assessment–Methods and Impacts Berlin. Heidelberg: Springer.
6. Delvenne, P., C., Fallon, and S., Brunet. 2011. “Parliamentary Technology Assessment Institutions as Indications of Reflexive Modernization.” Technology in Society 33 (1–2): 36–43. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.03.004
7. Enzing, C., J., Deuten, M., Rijnders-Nagle, and J., van Til. 2011. Technology Across Borders–Exploring Perspectives for Pan-European Parliamentary Technology Assessment. Brussels: European Parliament. STOA. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011/482684/IPOL-JOIN_ET%282011%29482684_EN.pdf
8. European Commission. 2013. “Options for Strengthening Research and Innovation.” Report of the Expert Group on the State of Art in Europe on Responsible Research and Innovation, EU Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Science in Society. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/options-for-strengthening_en.pdf
9. Falkner, G., W., Peissl, and H., Torgersen. 1994. “PTA in Europa: der Vergleich.” In Technikfolgen-Abschätzung in Europa, Forschungsstelle für Technikbewertung, edited by G., Falkner, W., Peissl, and H., Torgersen, 166–193. Wieno. http://epub.oeaw.ac.at/ita/ita-projektberichte/d2-2e03.pdf
10. Grunwald, A. 2009. “Technology Assessment: Concepts and Methods.” In Handbook of the Philosophy of Science. Volume 9: Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences, edited by M., Dov, A., Meijers, and J., Woods, 1103–1146. Amsterdam: North Holland.
11. Grunwald, A. 2010. Technikfolgenabschätzung–eine Einführung. 2nd ed. Berlin: Edition Sigma.
12. Guston, D. 2000. Between Politics and Science. Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Guston, D. 2001. “Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction.” Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 26, No. 4, Special Issue: Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science, pp. 399–408, Autumn.
14. Hennen, L., and M., Ladikas. 2009. “Embedding Society in European Science and Technology Policy Advice.” In Embedding Society in Science and Technology Policy–European and Chinese Perspectives, edited by M., Ladikas, 39–64. Brussels: European Commission.
15. Herdman, R. C., and J. E., Jensen. 1997. “The OTA Story: The Agency Perspective.” Technological Forecasting & Social Change 54 (2&3): 131–144. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00167-9
16. Hoppe, R., and J. Grin. 2000. “Traffic Problems Go Through the Technology Assessment Machine: A Culturalist Comparison.” In Parliaments and Technology: The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe, edited by N. Vig and H. Paschen, 273–324. New York: State University of New York Press.
17. Joss, S., and S., Bellucci, ed. 2002. “Participatory Technology Assessment–European Perspectives.” Centre for the Study of Democracy (CSD) at University of Westminster in association with TA Swiss, London.
18. Kunkle, G. C., 1995. “New Challenges or the Past Revisited? The Office of Technology Assessment in Historical Context.” Technology in Society 17 (2): 175–196. doi: 10.1016/0160-791X(95)00007-E
19. Meyer, R. 1999. Eine kurze Geschichte der TA-Konzepte. in TAB-Brief, No. 17. Berlin: Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung.
20. OTA (Office of Technology Assessment). 1996. “Annual Report to the Congress: Fiscal Year 1995.” http://ota-cdn.fas.org/reports/9600.pdf
21. PACITA, eds. J. Ganzevles and Q. van Est. 2012. TA Practices in Europe, Deliverable 2.2 of the PACITA (Parliaments and Civil Society in Technology Assessment) project, 2012, commissioned by: European Commission, September: PACITA Consortium. http://www.pacitaproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/TA-Practices-in-Europe-final.pdf
22. Peissl, W., and H., Torgersen. 1996. “Internationale Institutionalisierungsformen von Technikfolgen-Abschätzung–Vorbilder für Österreich?” In Technikfolgenabschätzung in Österreich–Entscheidungshilfe in einer komplexen Welt. Beispiele aus der Praxis, edited by G., Tichy, 30–66. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.
23. Petermann, P. 2000. “Technology Assessment Units in the European Parliamentary Systems.” In Parliaments and Technology: The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe, edited by N. J., Vig and H., Paschen, 37–61. New York: State University of New York Press.
24. Rip, A. 1986. “Controversies as Informal Technology Assessment.” Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 8 (2): 349–371.
25. Rip, A. 2012. “Futures of Technology Assessment.” In Der Systemblick auf Innovation. Technikfolgenafschätzung in der Technikgestaltung, edited by M., Decker, A., Grunwald, and M., Knapp, 29–39. Berlin: Edition Sigma.
26. Schot, J., and A., Rip. 1997. “The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54 (2–3): 251–268. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1
27. Shiroyama, H., G., Yoshizawa, M., Matsuo, and R., Hatanaka. “Activities without Institutionalization: Limits and Lessons of TA and TA-like Activities in Japan.” 2009 Atlanta Conference Science and Innovation Policy. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACSIP.2009.5367849
28. Slocum, N. 2003. Participatory Methods Toolkit. A Practitioner's Manual. Brussels: viWTA/King Baudouin Foundation.
29. Stilgoe, J., R., Owen, and P., Macnaghten. 2013. “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
30. Tiihonen, P., “Revamping the Work of the Committee for the Future.” Publication of the Committee of the Future 7/2011. http://web.eduskunta.fi/dman/Document.phx?documentId=yf14511143357746&cmd=download
31. Van Eijndhoven, J. 1997. “Technology Assessment: Product or Process?” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54 (2–3): 269–286. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00210-7
32. Van Est, R., and F., Brom. 2012. “Technology Assessment: Analytic and Democratic Practice.” In Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics: Second Edition, volume 4, edited by R., Chadwick, 306–320. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
33. Van Est, R., B., Walhout, V., Rerimassie, D., Stemerding, and L., Hanssen. 2012. “Governance of Nanotechnology in the Netherlands: Informing and Engaging in Different Social Spheres.” International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society (iJETS) 10 (1): 6–26.
34. Van Oudsheusden, M. 2014. “Where are the Politics in Responsible Innovation? European Governance, Technology Assessments, and Beyond.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 67–86. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.882097
35. Vig, N. J., and H., Paschen, ed. 2000. Parliaments and Technology: The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. New York: State University of New York Press.
36. Von Schomberg, R. 2012. “Prospects for Technology Assessment in a Framework of Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren. Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden, edited by M., Dusseldorp and R., Beecroft. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.