Responsible Innovation as a source of inspiration for Technology Assessment, and vice versa: the common challenge of responsibility, representation, issue identification, and orientation

Journal of Responsible Innovation

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 268-277

  van Est, Rinie ^a,b  

^a Rathenau Institute KNAW   (Netherlands)

^b EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

constructive TA; orientation; parliamentary TA; Responsible Innovation; Technology Assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 85044819598     PISSN: 23299460     EISSN: 23299037     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2017.1328652     Document Type: Letter

References (31)

1. Beck, U., 1992. The Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
2. Daimer, S., M., Hufnagl, and P., Warnke. 2012. “Challenge-oriented Policy-making and Innovation Systems Theory: Reconsidering Systemic Instruments.” In Innovation System Revisited: Experiences From 40 Years of Fraunhofer ISI Research, edited by Fraunhofer ISI (ed.), 217–234. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer Verlag.
3. van Est, R., 2011a. “The Broad Challenge of Public Engagement in Science.” Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 639–648. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9296-9
4. van Est, R., 2011b. “Keeping the Dream Alive: What ELSI-Research Might Learn From Parliamentary Technology Assessment.” In The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society Volume 2: Nanotechnology and the Challenges of Equity, Equality and Development, edited by S., Cozzens and J., Wetmore, 409–421. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.
5. van Est, R., 2013. “Moral Shortcomings in the Technology Debate.” Next Nature Network, January 30. https://www.nextnature.net/2013/01/moral-shortcomings-in-the-technology-debate/.
6. van Est, R., with the assistance of V. Rerimassie, I. van Keulen, and G. Dorren (translation K., Kaldenbach). 2014. Intimate Technology: The Battle for Our Body and Behaviour. Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut.
7. van Est, R., and F., Brom. 2012. “Technology Assessment: Analytic and Democratic Practice.” In Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics. 2nd ed., Vol. 4, edited by R., Chadwick, 306–320. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
8. Geels, F. W., 2002. “Technological Transitions as Evolutionary Reconfiguration Processes: A Multi-level Perspective and a Case-study.” Research Policy 31 (8–9): 1257–1274. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8
9. Grin, J., and A., Grunwald, eds. 2000. Vision Assessment: Shaping Technology in the 21st Century. Towards a Repertoire for Technology Assessment. Berlin: Springer.
10. Grin, J., J. Rotmans, and J. Schot in collaboration with F. Geels and D. Loorbach. 2010. Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change. New York: Routledge.
11. Grin, J., H., van de Graaf, and R., Hoppe. 1997. Technology Assessment Through Interaction: A Guide. The Hague: Rathenau Instituut.
12. Grunwald, A., 2011. “Responsible Innovation: Bringing together Technology Assessment, Applied Ethics, and STS Research.” Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies 7: 9–31.
13. Harper, R., T., Rodden, Y., Rogers, and A., Sellen, eds. 2008. Being Human: Human–Computer Interaction in the Year 2020. Cambridge: Microsoft.
14. Joss, S., and S., Bellucci, eds. 2002. Participatory Technology Assessment: European Perspectives. London: Centre for the Study of Democracy.
15. Klüver, L., R. Ø., Nielsen, and M. L., Jørgensen, eds. 2015. Policy-oriented Technology Assessment Across Europe: Expanding Capacities. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
16. van Lente, H., T., Swierstra, and P.-B., Joly. 2017. “Responsible Innovation as a Critique of Technology Assessment.” Journal of Responsible Innovation. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2017.1326261
17. Loorbach, D., 2010. “Transition Management for Sustainable Development: A Prescriptive, Complexity-based Governance Framework.” Governance 23: 161–183. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01471.x
18. Rip, A., 2016. “The Clothes of the Emperor. An Essay on RRI in and Around Brussels.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 3 (3): 290–304. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2016.1255701
19. Rip, A., and D. K. R., Robinson. 2013. “Constructive Technology Assessment and the Method of Insertion.” In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening up the Laboratory, edited by N., Doorn, 37–54. Dordrecht: Springer.
20. Schot, J., 2003. “The Contested Rise of a Modernist Technology Politics.” In Modernity and Technology, edited by T. J., Misa, P., Brey, and A., Feenberg, 257–278. Cambridge: MIT Press.
21. Schot, J., and F. W., Geels. 2008. “Strategic Niche Management and Sustainable Innovation Journeys: Theory, Findings, Research Agenda, and Policy.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20 (5): 537–554. doi: 10.1080/09537320802292651
22. Schot, J., and A., Rip. 1997. “The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54: 251–268. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1
23. Schot, J., and W. E., Steinmueller. 2016. Framing Innovation Policy for Transformative Change: Innovation Policy 3.0. Draft Version 2. Sussex: University of Sussex, Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU).
24. Stemerding, D., Forthcoming. From Technology Assessment to Responsible Research and Innovation in Synthetic Biology.
25. Steward, F., 2008. Breaking the Boundaries: Transformative Innovation for the Global Good. London: NESTA.
26. Stiegler, B., 1998. Technics and Time: The Fault of Prometheus. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
27. Swierstra, T., M., Boenink, B., Walhout, and R., van Est. 2009. “Converging Technologies, Shifting Boundaries.” Journal of Nanoethics 3 (3): 213–216. doi: 10.1007/s11569-009-0075-x
28. Swierstra, T., and H., te Molder. 2012. “Risk and Soft Impacts.” In Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk, edited by S., Roeser, R., Hillerbrand, P., Sandin, and M., Peterson, 1049–1066. Dordrecht: Springer.
29. 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
30. Wilsdon, J., and R., Willis. 2004. See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.
31. Wong, P.-H., 2016. “Responsible Innovation for Decent Nonliberal Peoples: A Dilemma?” Journal of Responsible Innovation 3 (2): 154–168. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2016.1216709