Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Shaping the Impact: the Institutional Context of Technology Assessment

  • Chapter
Bridges between Science, Society and Policy

Part of the book series: Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung ((ETHICSSCI,volume 22))

Abstract

This paper addresses the relationship between scientific knowledge and politics, and more specifically the role of knowledge and information about highly technical issues in politics. The connection between science and politics, the relationship between government (the executive) and science (Smith 1992) has been studied at length, both from the viewpoint of science as a system that demands funds and resources (Cozzens and Woodhouse 1995), and of the role that scientists and experts play as advisors in the political process (Barker and Peters 1993; Bimber and Guston 1995), to presidents (Bromley 1995), bureaucrats (Jasanoff 1990) and even to the judicial system (Jasanoff 1995). Some steps have also been taken to gauge the impact of scientific advice (The IPTS Report 2001; The IPTS Report 2003).

We thank TAMI colleagues for their comments, special thanks to Lars Kluver, Jan Staman, Leo Hennen and David Cope for their suggestions. We also thank the European Commission (HPV1-CT-2001-60043) and the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology (SEC-99-0829-C02-01) for their funding.

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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.

References

  • Barker A, Guy Peters B (eds) (1993) The Politics of Expert Advice: Creating, Using and Manipulating Scientific Knowledge for Public Policy. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry FS, Berry WD (1990) State Lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event History analysis. The American Political Science Review, vol 84,2, jun, 395–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Bimber B (1996) The Politics of Expertise in Congress. The Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment. State University of New York Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • Bimber B, Guston DH (1995) “Politics by the Same Means. Government and Science in The United States”. In: Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Petersen JC, Pinch T (eds) (1995) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage, London, 554–571

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bimber B, Guston DH (1997) Introduction: The End of OTA and the Future of Technology Assessment, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 54, issues 2–3, February—March 1997, 125–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley DA (1995) The President’s Scientists. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman J (1966) Medical Innovations: A diffusion Study. Bobbs-Merrill, New Yorks

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman J, Katz E, Menzel H (1957) The Diffusion of an Innovation Among Physicians. Sociometry, Vol. 20, No. 4. (Dec. 1957), pp 253–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier D (1993) “The Comparative Method”. In: Finifter AW (ed) (1993) Political Science: The State of the Discipline I I. APSA, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper J, Brady DW (1981) Towards a diachronic Analysis of Congress. The American Political Science Review, vol 75, 4, Dec, 988–1006

    Google Scholar 

  • Cozzens SE, Woodhouse EJ (1995) “Science, Government, and the Politics of Knowledge”. In: Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Petersen JC, Pinch T (eds) (1995) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage, London, 533–553

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson RM (1962) Power-dependence Relations. American Sociological Review, vol 27, 1, Feb, 31–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman MS, March JG (1981) Information in Organizations and Signal and Symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 26, pp 171–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore M (1996) National Interest and International Society. Cornet Unievrsity Press, Ithaca (NY )

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons JH, Gwin HL (1988) “Technology and Governance: The Development of the Office of Technology Assessment”. In: Fraft ME, Vig NJ (eds) (1988) Technology and Politics. Duke University Press, Durham, 98–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas PM (1992) Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. En International Organization vol 46, n.l, pp 1–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Heclo H (1974) Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden. Yale University Press, New Haven (Co )

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedström P (1998) “Rational imitation”. In: Hedström P, Swedberg R (eds) Social mechanism. An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 306–327

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Holdswordth D (2000) “Parliamentary Technology Assessment by STOA at the European Parliament”. In: Vig N, Paschen NH (eds) (2000) Parliaments and Technology. The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. State University of New York Press, Albany (NY), 199–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt RT (1977) Technology Assessment and Technology Inducement Mechanism. American Journal of Political Science vol 21, 2, May, 1977, 283–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers As Policymakers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (1995) Science at the Bar: Law, Science and Technology in America, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Ma )

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones M, Guston DH, Branscomb LM (1996) Informed Legislatures. Coping with Science in a Democracy. University Press of America, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Killian JR (1977) Sputnik, Scientist and Eisenhower. The MIT Press, Cambridge (Ma )

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon J (1984/1995), Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, Little Brown, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Klüver L (2000) “The Danish Board of Technology”. In: Vig N, Paschen JH (eds) (2000) Parliaments and Technology. The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. State University of New York Press, Albany (NY), 173–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlman S, Boekholt P, Georghiou L, Guy K, Héraud J-A, Laredo P, Lemola T, Loveridge D, Luukkonen T, Polt W, Rip A, Sanz-Menéndez L, Smits R (1999) Improving Distributed Intelligence in Complex Innovation Systems, Final report of the Advanced Science & Technology Policy Planning Network (ASTPP), Brussels, EC-DGXII, mimeo

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurent M (2000) “France: Office Parlementaire d’Evaluation des Choix Scientifiques et technologiques”. In: Vig N, Norman J, Paschen H (eds) (2000) Parliaments and Technology. The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. State University of New York Press, Albany (NY), 125–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone G (1991) Cross-National Sources of Regulatory Policymaking in Europe and the United States. Journal of Public Policy 11, 1, January-March 1991, 79–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer JW, Hannan MT (1979) National Development and the World System. Education, Economic and Political Change 1950–1970. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer JW, O Ramirez F, Soysal YN(1992) World Expansion of Mass Education, 1870–1980. Sociology of Education vol 65, 2, April, 128–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton M (2000) “Origins and Functions of the UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology”. In: Vig N, Paschen JH (eds) (2000) Parliaments and Technology. The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. State University of New York Press, Albany (NY), 65–92

    Google Scholar 

  • OTA-Office of Technology Assessment. United States Congress (1996) OTA legacy. US Printing Office, Washington DC, 5 vols (Cdrom)

    Google Scholar 

  • Paschen H (2000) “The Technology Assessment Bureau of the German Parliament”. In: Vig N, Paschen JH (eds) (2000) Parliaments and Technology. The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. State University of New York Press, Albany (NY), 93–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Petermann T (2000) “Technology Assessment Units in the European Parliamentary Systems”. In: Vig N, Paschen JH (eds) (2000) Parliaments and Technology. The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. State University of New York Press, Albany (NY), 37–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Polsby NW (1968) The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives. The American Political Science Review vol 62, 1, March, 144–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Polsby NW (1984) Political Innovation in America. The Politics of Policy Initiation. Yale University Press, New Haven(Co) - London

    Google Scholar 

  • Polsby NW, Schickler E (2002) Landmarks in the Study of Congress since 1945. Annual Review of Political Science vol 5, 333–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter AL, Rossini FA, Carpenter SR, Roper AT (1980) A Guidebook for Technology Assessment and Impact Analysis. North-Holland, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Przeworski A, Alvarez ME, Cheibub JA, Limongi F (2000) Democracy and Development. Political institutions and well-being in the World ( 1950–1990 ). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Quintanilla MA (coord.) (1989) Evaluación Parlamentaria de las Opciones Científicas y Tecnologicas. Centro de Estudios Constitucionales, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip A, Misa TJ, Schot J (eds) (1996) Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. Pinter, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers EM (1962/1995) Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press (4a ed.), New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose R, Davies PL (1994) Inheritance in public policy. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose R (1991) What is Lesson-Drawing?. Journal of Public Policy 11, 1, January-March 1991, 3–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier P (1988) An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein. Policy Sciences vol 21, 129–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider M, Teske P, Mintrom M (1995) Public Entrepreneurs. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön DA, Rein M (1994) Frame reflection. Towards the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon H (1983) Reason in Human Affairs. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith BLR (1992) The Advisors: Scientist in the Policy Process. Brookings Institution, Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smits R (1987) “Aspects of the integration of science and technology in the American society”. In: VV.AA. ( 1987 ) Technology Assessment. An Opportunity for Europe. The Hague: Government Printing Office

    Google Scholar 

  • Smits R, Leyten J, Den Hertog P (1995) Technology assessment and technology policy in Europe: New concepts, new goals, new infrastructures. Policy Sciences, 28, 3, August, 271–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundquist J (1981) The Decline and resurgence of Congress. The Brooking Institution, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • The IPTS Report (2001) Special Issue: The Provision and Impact of Scientific Advice. The IPTS Report n° 60, December 2001, Sevilla: CE-CCI_IPTS

    Google Scholar 

  • The IPTS Report (2003) Special Issue: Assessing the Impact of Scientific Advice. The IPTS Report n° 72, March 2003, Sevilla: CE-CCI_IPTS

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eijndhoven J (1997) Technology Assessment: Product or Process? Technological Forecasting and Social Change vol. 54, issues 2–3, February—March 1997, 269–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eijndhoven J (2000) “The Netherlands: Technology Assessment from Academically Oriented Analyses to Support of Public debate”. In: Vig NJ, Paschen H (eds) (2000) Parliaments and Technology. The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. State University of New York Press, Albany (NY), 147–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Vig NJ, Paschen H (2000) “Introduction. Technology Assessment in Comparative Perspective”. In: Vig NJ, Paschen H (eds) (2000) Parliaments and Technology. The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. State University of New York Press, Albany (NY), 3–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Vig NJ (2000) “Conclusions. The European Parliamentary Technology Assessment Experience”. In: Vig NJ, Paschen H (eds) (2000) Parliaments and Technology. The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. State University of New York Press, Albany (NY), 365–394

    Google Scholar 

  • VVAA (2000) EUROPTA. European Participatory Technology Assessment. Participatory Methods in technology Assessment and Technology Decision-Making. The Danish Board of Technology, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker JL (1969) The diffusion of innovations among the American States. The American Political Science Review vol 63, 3, Sept., 880–899

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiteman D (1997) Congress and Policy Anâlisis. A Context for Assessing the Use of OTA projects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change vol 54, 1997, 177–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolman H (1992) Understanding Cross National Policy Transfers: The Case of Britain and the US. Governance, An International Journal of Policy and Administration, vol. 5, n. 2, pp. 27–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Laura Cruz-Castro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luis Sanz-Menéndez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und Systemanalyse (Institute for Technology Assessment and System Analysis), Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, P.O. box 36 40, 76021, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Michael Decker

  2. Europäische Akademie GmbH, Wilhelmstraße 56, 53474, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany

    Miltos Ladikas , Susanne Stephan  & Friederike Wütscher ,  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cruz-Castro, L., Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2004). Shaping the Impact: the Institutional Context of Technology Assessment. In: Decker, M., Ladikas, M., Stephan, S., Wütscher, F. (eds) Bridges between Science, Society and Policy. Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung, vol 22. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-06171-8_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-06171-8_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-05960-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-06171-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation