Abstract
Any discussion about the mission of TA and its relationship to policy making will soon enough touch upon the question of the effects that TA might or should have on decision making as well as on the content and path of political and social debate on technology issues. TA, as an endeavour that is meant to explore the possible impact of technology on society in order to support policy making, will naturally be asked to bear witness on its own impact as an indicator as whether or not it really fulfils its ascribed mission and tasks. Discussions on impact of TA, however, usually suffer from a lack of common understanding of TA’s objectives and of what can be expected as an impact of TA. Unsurprisingly, there is also very little available information on attempts to measure or evaluate the impact of TA in Europe. This reflects the past lack of coordinating action in discussing the goals of TA and the processes by which they can be attained. The knowledge vacuum in this area could influence the ability of TA as a discipline to communicate its roles and consequently, its value in society. It was the objective of the TAMI impact group to develop a structured discussion on the objectives, functions and effects of TA and prepare the ground for future attempts to evaluate TA procedures and their impact on related decision making processes. Being aware of the complex nature of the issue of impact evaluation, the group did not aim at developing a detailed scheme or a set of criteria for future evaluation procedures. Instead, TAMI aimed to provide a frame of reference on the relationship of objectives, methods and impacts of TA. The discussion among the group members — the outcome of which is presented in this paper — evolved around the question of which kind of impact can realistically be expected from TA as a particular branch of policy consulting taking into account its mission and methods, the nature of the issues it is dealing with and the characteristics of the field of policy making it is acting in. The result of this process of self-reflection among a group of TA experts from many European countries is mainly a matrix of TA impactsthat helps to clarify the role of TA in technology policy and the related impacts thatcan be expected.
“The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Parliament”.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Albaek E (1995) Between Knowledge and Power. Utilisation of Social Science in Public Policy Making. Policy Sciences 28: 79–100
Beck U (1985) Risikogesellschaft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.
Berg MR, Michael DN, Brudney JL (1978) Factors Affecting Utilisation of Technology Assessment in Policy Making. Centre for Research on Utilisation of Scientific Knowledge. University of Michigan
Biitschi D, Nentwich M (2002) “The Role of Participatory Technology Assessment in the Policy-making Process”. In: Joss S, Bellucci S (eds) Participatory Technology Assessment — European Perspectives. Westminster University Press, London 253–256
Caplan N (1979) The two Communities Theory and Knowledge Utilisation. American Behavioral Sciences 459–470
Cohen MD, March JG, Olsen JP (1972) A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly 17: 1–25
DeLeon P (1990) Paricipatory Policy Analysis: Prescriptions and Precautions. Asian Journal of Public Administration 12: 29–54
Fuller S (1999) The Governance of Science. Buckingham, Open University Press
Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1992) “Three Types of Risk Assessment and the Emergence of Post Normal Science”. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social Theories of Risk. Westport 252–274 Giddens A ( 1991 ) The Consequences of Modernity. Polity Press, Cambridge
Habermas J (1991) Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt flennen L (1999) Participatory Technology Assessment — A Response to Technical Modernity?. Science and Public Policy 26: 303–312
Hennen L (2002) “Impacts of Participatory Technology Assessment on its Societal Environment”. In: Joss S, Bellucci s (eds) Participatory Technology Assessment — European Perspectives. Westminster University Press, London 257–275
Héretier A (1993) Policy Analyse. Elemente der Kritik und Perspektiven der Neuorientierung. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Sonderheft 24: 9–38
Hetman F (1973) Society and Assessment of Technology. Paris: OECD
Jasanoff S (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. MA: Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Joss S, Bellucci S (eds) (2002) Participatory Technology Assessment — European perspectives. Westminster University Press, London
Kingdon J (1984) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Little, Brown, Boston
Liakopoulos M (2001) The Politics of Technology Assessment. In: Decker M (ed) Interdisciplinar-
ity in Technology Assessment; implementation and its chances and limits. Springer, Berlin Luhmann N (1969) Legitimation durch Verfahren. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.
National Academy of Sciences (1969) Processes of Assessment and Choice. National Academy Press, Washington DC
Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Rethinking Science — Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge
OECD (1983) Assessing the Impacts of Technology on Society. OECD, Paris
Paschen H, Petermann Th (1991) “Technikfolgen-Abschätzung. Ein strategisches Rahmenkonzept fir die Analyse und Bewertung von Techniken”. In: Petermann Th (ed) Technikfolgenabschätzung als Politikberatung. Campus, Frankfurt and New York 19–42
Paschen H, Bechmann G, Coenen R, Franz P, Petermann Th, Schevitz J, Wingert B (1991) “Zur Umsetzungsproblematik bei der Technikfolgenabschätzung”. In: Petermann Th, Technikfolgenabschätzung als Politikberatung, Campus, FrankfurtNew York 151–184
Rip A (1986) Controversies as Informal Technology Assessment. Knowledge, Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 8: 349–371
Rip A, Misa Th J, Schot J (eds) (1995) Managing Technology in Society — The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. Pinter, London New York
Scharpf FW (1993) Positive und negative Koordination in Verhandlungssystemen. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Sonderheft 24: 57–83
Sabatier P (1988) An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy Oriented Learning Therein. Policy Sciences 21: 129–168
Torgersen D (1986) Between Knowledge and Politics: Three Faces of Policy Analysis. Policy Sciences 19: 33–59
Van den Daele W (1995) Technology Assessment as a Political Experiment. In: von Schomberg R (ed) Contested Technology, International Centre for Human and Public Affaires, Tilburg/ Buenos Aires 63–90
Van Warden F (1992) Dimensions and Types of Policy Networks, European Journal of Policy Research 21: 29–52
Von Prittwitz V (ed) (1996) Verhandeln und Argumentieren. Leske und Budrich, Opladen
Vig N, Paschen H (eds) (2000) Parliaments and Technology — The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. State University of New York Press, Albany
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hennen, L. et al. (2004). Towards a Framework for Assessing the Impact 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_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-06171-8_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-05960-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-06171-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive