Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Strategische und konstruktive Technikfolgenabschätzung

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Konzepte und Verfahren der Technikfolgenabschätzung

Zusammenfassung

Technikfolgenabschätzung (Technology Assessment, TA) soll Gestaltern, Nutzern und Entscheidungsträgern in Gesellschaft, Wissenschaft, Wirtschaft und Politik Einsichten und Wissen liefern, um geeignete Innovationsstrategien zu entwickeln. TA soll die Entscheidungsfindung erleichtern und die gesellschaftliche Einbettung technologischer Innovationsprozesse unterstützen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 34.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • Benz, A. (2006): Governance in connected arenas – political science analysis of coordination and control in complex control systems. In: Jansen, D. (Hg.): New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations. From Disciplinary Theories towards Interfaces and Integration, Heidelberg, New York (Springer), 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boon , W.; Moors, E. H.; Kuhlmann, S.; Smits, R. E. (2011): Demand articulation in emerging technologies: intermediary user organisations as coproducers? In: Research Policy 40(2),242–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, D. (2006): Delegation in the distributive policy arena: the case of research policy. In: Braun, D.; Gilardi, F. (Hg.): Delegation in Contemporary Democracies. London (Routledge), 146–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1991): Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In: Law, J. (Hg.): A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London (Routledge), 132–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (2005): Disabled persons of all countries, unite. In: Latour, B.; Weibel, P. (Hg.): Making Things public, Atmospheres of Democracy. Karlsruhe, Cambridge, Mass. (ZKM/MIT), 308–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003): Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA (Harvard Business School).

    Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge, D. (1980): The Social Control of Technology. London, New York (Pinter).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. (1982): Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested Interpretation of Determinants and Directions of technical Change. In: Research Policy 11(3),147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edler , J.; Joly, P.-B.; Kuhlmann, S.; Nedeva, M.; Propp, T.; Rip, A.; Ruhland, S.; Thomas, D. (2006): Understanding „Fora of Strategic Intelligence for Research and Innovation“. The PRIME Forum Research Project, Karlsruhe (Fraunhofer ISI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Elzen , B.; Geels, F. W.; Hofman, P.; Green, K. (2004). Sociotechnical scenarios as a tool for transition policy: An example from the traffic and transport domain. In: Elzen, B.;Geels, P.; Green, K. (Hg.): System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy. Cheltenham (Edward Elgar), 251–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elzen, B. (2006): Combining technical and behavioral change: The Role of Experimental Projects as a Step Stone Towards Sustainable Mobility. In: Verbeek, P. P., Slob, A. (Hg.): User Behavior and Technology Development. Shaping Sustainable Relations Between Consumers and Technologies (Ecoefficiency in industry and science, 20). Dordrecht (Springer), 331–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felt , U.; Wynne, B; Callon, M.; Gonçalves, M. E.; Jasanoff, S.; Jepsen, M.; Joly, P.-B.; Konopasek, Z.; May, S.; Neubauer, C.; Rip, A.; Siune, K.; Stirling, A.; Tallachini, M. (2007): Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance. Brüssel (European Commission), http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/european-knowledge-society_en.pdf (Zugriff 25. 01. 2013).

  • Geels , F. W.; Schot, J. (2007): Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. In: Research Policy 36(3),399–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gershenfeld, N. A. (2005): Fab: the coming revolution on your desktop—from personal computers to personal fabrication. New York (Basic Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • Joly , P. B.; Rip, A. (2007): A timely harvest. In: Nature 450(8),174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp , R.; Schot, J.; Hoogma, R. (1998): Regime Shifts to Sustainability Through Processes of Niche Formation: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management. In: Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 10(2),175–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlmann, S. (2003): Evaluation as a Source of „Strategic Intelligence“. In: Shapira, Ph., Kuhlmann, S. (Hg.): Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation: Experiences from the United States and Europe. Cheltenham (Edward Elgar), 352–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlmann, S. (2007): Governance of innovation: Practice, policy, and theory as dancing partners. Inaugural Lecture, University of Twente, http://doc.utwente.nl/59649/1/rede_S_Kuhlman.pdf (Zugriff 28. 01. 2013).

  • Kuhlmann, S. (2010): TA als Tanz: Zur Governance technologischer Innovation. Neue Aufgaben des Technology Assessment. In: Aichholzer, G.; Bora, A.; Bröchler, S.; Decker, M.; Latzer, M. (Hg.): Technology Governance. Der Beitrag der Technikfolgenabschätzung. Berlin (edition sigma), 41–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlmann, S. (2013): Innovation Policies (vis-á-vis Practice and Theory). In: Carayannis, E. D. (Hg.): Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship. o. O. (Springer Science + Business Media) i. E.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lüthje , C.; Herstatt, C.; von Hippel, E. (2005): User-innovators and „local“ information: The case of mountain biking. In: Research Policy 34(6),951–965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin , B. R.; Nightingale, P.; Yegros-Yegros, A. (2012): Science and technology studies: Exploring the knowledge base. In: Research Policy 41(7),1182–1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz, R. (1998): New Challenges to Governance Theory. Florenz (European University Institute, The Robert Schuman Centre, Jean Monnet Chair Papers 50).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz , R.; Scharpf, F. W . (1995): Der Ansatz des akteurzentrierten Institutionalismus. In: dieselben (Hg.): Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und politische Steuerung, Frankfurt, New York (Campus), 39–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson , R.; Winter, S. (1977): In search of a useful theory of innovation. In: Research Policy 6(1),36–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny , H.; Testa, G. (2009): Die gläsernen Gene. Die Erfindung des Individuums im molekularen Zeitalter. Frankfurt (Suhrkamp, edition unseld 16).

    Google Scholar 

  • Oudshoorn , N.; Pinch, T. (Hg.) (2003): How Users Matter: The Co-construction of Users and Technologies. Cambridge, MA; London (MIT Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabeharisoa , V.; Callon, M. (2004): Patients and scientists in French muscular dystrophy research. In: Jasanoff, S. (Hg.): States of Knowledge. The co-production of science and social order. London (Routledge), 142–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (2001): Assessing the Impacts of Innovation: New Developments in Technology Assessment. In: OECD Proceedings, Social Sciences and Innovation, Paris (OECD), 197–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (2006): A coevolutionary approach to reflexive governance – and its ironies. In: Voß, J.-P.; Bauknecht, D.; Kemp, R. (Hg.): Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Cheltenham UK (Edward Elgar), 82–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip , A.; Kemp, R. (1998): Technological Change. In: Rayner, S.; Malone, L. (Hg.): Human Choice and Climate Change, Vol. 2, Resources and Technology, Washington DC (Batelle Press), 327–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D. (2010): Constructive Technology Assessment of Emerging Nanotechnologies. Experiments in Interactions. Enschede (University of Twente, PhD dissertation), http://doc.utwente.nl/74640/1/thesis_D_Robinson.pdf (Zugriff 28. 01. 2013).

  • Scharpf, Fritz W. (2000): Interaktionsformen. Akteurzentrierter Institutionalismus in der Politikforschung. Opladen (Leske + Budrich).

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. (1995): Institutions and Organizations, London (Sage).

    Google Scholar 

  • Smits , R.; van Merkerk, R.; Guston, D.; Sarewitz, D. (2010): Strategic Intelligence: The Role of TA in Systemic Innovation Policy. In: Smits, R., Kuhlmann, S.; Shapira, P. (Hg.): The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy: An International Research Handbook. Cheltenham; Northampton, MA (Edward Elgar), 387–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • te Kulve, H.; Rip, A. (2011): Constructing Productive Engagement: Pre-engagement Tools for Emerging Technologies. In: Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4),699–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Ende, J.; Kemp, R. (1999): Technological transformations in history: how the computer regime grew out of existing computing regimes. In: Research Policy 28(8),833–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Valk, T. (2007): Technology dynamics, network dynamics and partnering – The case of Dutch dedicated life sciences firms. Utrecht (Utrecht University).

    Google Scholar 

  • van Lente, H. (1993): Promising Technology: the dynamics of expectations in technological developments. Enschede (Universiteit Twente, WMW-Publikatie 17).

    Google Scholar 

  • van Merkerk, R.; Smits, R. (2008): Tailoring CTA for emerging technologies. In: Technological Forecasting & Social Change 75(3),312–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Oost, E. C. J.; Verhaegh, S. J. S.; Oudshoorn, N. E. J. (2008): From Innovation Community to Community Innovation. User-initiated Innovation in Wireless Leiden. In: Science, technology and human values, 34(2),182–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (2005): Democratizing innovation, Cambridge/Mass (MIT Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Voß , J.-P.; Bauknecht, D.; Kemp, R. (Hg.) (2006): Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development, Cheltenham (Edward Elgar).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bielfeld, Deutschland

    Stefan Kuhlmann

Authors
  1. Stefan Kuhlmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Kuhlmann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Fernuniv. Hagen, Universitätsstr. 33, Hagen, 58084, Germany

    Georg Simonis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kuhlmann, S. (2013). Strategische und konstruktive Technikfolgenabschätzung. In: Simonis, G. (eds) Konzepte und Verfahren der Technikfolgenabschätzung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02035-4_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02035-4_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-02034-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-02035-4

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Science (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation