Technology Assessment in Social Context: The case for a new framework for assessing and shaping technological developments

Traditional expert (or technocratic) approaches to Technology Assessment have been fundamentally challenged by two observations. The first is that social impacts are not side effects of technology; they are core dimensions of new technology and technological development, and are a function of the coproduction of technology and society. As such, they can only be understood in social, not technical terms. Secondly, technological developments are driven by particular visions for society that are normative. Because these visions (and the latent premises that underpin them) are implicit and not negotiated by society, they are, in effect, undemocratic. Participatory methods have been utilized by Technology Assessment to improve the evaluation of the social and ethical dimensions of technology, and to democratize decision making about science and technology. However, we argue that public participation on its own does not necessarily lead to deeper understandings of social effects, nor necessarily to democratic input into decision making. We therefore make a case for a new form of Technology Assessment which we call TASC — Technology Assessment in Social Context. It takes a constructive, social systems approach to assess technology in social context and seeks to shape technology and social contexts through information, interaction and dialogue.

[1]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  A Triple Helix of University—Industry—Government Relations , 1998, Scientometrics.

[2]  B. Wynne.  Unruly Technology: Practical Rules, Impractical Discourses and Public Understanding , 1988 .

[3]  John Grin,et al.  Technology Assessment through interaction. A guide , 1997 .

[4]  Armin Grunwald.  Rationality in an Uncertain World. The Vision of Sustainable Development as an Adequate Answer , 2005 .

[5]  J. Durant.  Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science , 1999 .

[6]  Thomas J. Misa,et al.  Managing technology in society: the approach of constructive technology assessment , 1997 .

[7]  P. Bereano.  Reflections of a participant-observer , 1997 .

[8]  G. Assefa,et al.  Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: A case study of energy technologies , 2007 .

[9]  David H. Guston,et al.  Real-time technology assessment , 2020, Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.

[10]  P. Verbeek,et al.  Materializing Morality , 2006 .

[11]  D. Yankelovich,et al.  The Magic of Dialogue: Transforming Conflict into Cooperation , 1999 .

[12]  Aleksei Savatyugin,et al.  The History of Economic Analysis , 2002 .

[13]  B. Wynne.  From public perception of risk to cultural theory of technology , 1985 .

[14]  Frank Vanclay,et al.  International Principles For Social Impact Assessment , 2003 .

[15]  Luigi Pellizzoni,et al.  Uncertainty and Participatory Democracy , 2003, Environmental Values.

[16]  Harold A. Linstone,et al.  Technology Assessment Act of 1970 , 1970 .

[17]  Johan Schot,et al.  Towards New Forms of Participatory Technology Development , 2001, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[18]  Michael Carolan,et al.  Evolution of an agricultural innovation: the N-Trak soil nitrogen test - adopt and discontinue, or reject? , 2001 .

[19]  Audley Genus.  Rethinking constructive technology assessment as democratic, reflective, discourse , 2006 .

[20]  Roger Herdman,et al.  The OTA story: The agency perspective , 1997 .

[21]  Michael Decker,et al.  Bridges between science, society and policy : technology assessment - methods and impacts , 2004 .

[22]  Robin Williams,et al.  Social Shaping of Technology: Frameworks, Findings and Implications for Policy, with Glossary of Social Shaping Concepts , 2002 .

[23]  David H. Guston,et al.  Forget politicizing science. Let's democratize science! , 2004 .

[24]  B. Wynne,et al.  Misunderstanding science? : the public reconstruction of science and technology , 1996 .

[25]  James Wilsdon,et al.  See-Through Science : Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream , 2004 .

[26]  Josée C.M. Van Eijndhoven,et al.  Technology assessment: Product or process? , 1997 .

[27]  Frank Vanclay,et al.  Conceptualising social impacts , 2002 .

[28]  Herbert Paschen,et al.  Parliaments and technology : the development of technology assessment in Europe , 2000 .

[29]  Arie Rip,et al.  Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of Moral Argumentation About New and Emerging Science and Technology , 2007 .

[30]  Philip J. Vergragt,et al.  Traditional and Modern Technology Assessment: Toward a Toolkit , 1998 .

[31]  Bruce Bimber,et al.  The Politics of Expertise in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment , 1996 .

[32]  Armin Grunwald,et al.  Converging technologies: Visions, increased contingencies of the conditio humana, and search for orientation , 2007 .

[33]  Ira Bennett,et al.  Too Little, Too Late? Research Policies on the Societal Implications of Nanotechnology in the United States , 2006 .

[34]  Derek Medford.  Environmental harassment or technology assessment , 1973 .

[35]  Frank Fischer,et al.  Technological deliberation in a democratic society: The case for participatory inquiry , 1999 .

[36]  Simon Joss,et al.  Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: An impact study of consensus conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish public debate , 1998 .

[37]  Audley Genus,et al.  On Constructive Technology Assessment and Limitations on Public Participation in Technology Assessment , 2005, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[38]  David H. Guston,et al.  Introduction: The end of OTA and the future of technology assessment , 1997 .

[39]  C. T. Hill,et al.  The congressional Office of Technology Assessment , 1997 .

[40]  D. Edge,et al.  The social shaping of technology , 1988 .

[41]  Frank Vanclay,et al.  THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: HOW DO TBL, EIA, SIA, SEA AND EMS RELATE TO EACH OTHER? , 2004 .

[42]  Styles, Parables And Scripts: Diversity And Conformity In Australian And Finnish Agriculture , 2007 .

[43]  Laura Cruz-Castro,et al.  Politics and institutions: European parliamentary technology assessment , 2005 .

[44]  Frank Vanclay,et al.  Citizen values assessment: incorporating citizens' value judgements in environmental impact assessment , 2002 .

[45]  F. Wickson.  From risk to uncertainty in the regulation of GMOs: social theory and Australian practice , 2007 .

[46]  P. Bhargava.  The social, moral, ethical, legal and political implications of today's biological technologies: An Indian point of view , 2006, Biotechnology journal.

[47]  Joseph F. Coates,et al.  Technology assessment: Here today, gone tomorrow☆ , 1995 .

[48]  Michael Decker,et al.  Bridges between Science, Society and Policy , 2004 .

[49]  Christopher T. Hill.  The congressional office of technology assessment a retrospective and prospects for the post-OTA world , 1996, 1996 International Symposium on Technology and Society Technical Expertise and Public Decisions. Proceedings.

[50]  R. Sparrow,et al.  The case for regulating intragenic GMOs , 2008 .

[51]  A. W. Russell,et al.  GMOs and their contexts: A comparison of potential and actual performance of GM crops in a local agricultural setting , 2008 .

[52]  A. Rip,et al.  The past and future of constructive technology assessment , 1997 .

[53]  Matthew Kearnes,et al.  Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences? , 2005 .

[54]  Peter Checkland.  Soft systems methodology : a 30-year retrospective ; and, Systems thinking, systems practice , 1999 .

[55]  Frank Vanclay,et al.  Function evaluation as a framework for the integration of social and environmental impact assessment , 2001 .

[56]  Simon Joss,et al.  Participatory technology assessment: European perspectives , 2002 .

[57]  Gabriele Bammer,et al.  Research Integration Using Dialogue Methods , 2011 .

[58]  Arie Rip,et al.  Interactive Technology Assessment in the Real World , 2008 .

[59]  John Grin,et al.  Technology Assessment as Learning , 1996 .

[60]  Leonhard Hennen,et al.  Participatory technology assessment: A response to technical modernity? , 1999 .

[61]  F. Vanclay,et al.  Enhancing the social content of environmental management systems in Australian agriculture , 2007 .