The Practice of TA; Science, Interaction, and Communication

As TAMI reflects on the activities of Technology Assessment (TA) institutions and their effectiveness, the central question seems to be: which methods should TA use in order to optimise impact? Although this question sounds quite easy, this paper shows that reflecting on the impact of TA methods is a very complex endeavour. The goal of optimising impact of TA activities requires a comprehensive reflection on TA processes, TA quality criteria and, the institutionalisation and mission of TA. In this paper we strive to provide a common ground for such a broad reflection.

[1]  S. Toulmin.  The uses of argument , 1960 .

[2]  A. Grunwald,et al.  Rational Technology Assessment as Interdisciplinary Research , 2001 .

[3]  Michael Decker,et al.  Interdisciplinarity in Technology Assessment , 2001 .

[4]  Ralph L. Keeney.  The Role of Values in Risk Management , 1996 .

[5]  Charles Vlek,et al.  Social Decision Methodology for Technological Projects , 1989 .

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

[7]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation , 1995 .

[8]  Peter C. Dienel,et al.  Contributing to Social Decision Methodology: Citizen Reports on Technological Projects , 1989 .

[9]  Lieve Goorden,et al.  Biotechnologie en het debat anno 2002 , 2002 .

[10]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Public Values in Risk Research , 1996 .

[11]  Armin Grunwald,et al.  Technik fÜr die Gesellschaft von morgen : MÖglichkeiten und Grenzen gesellschaftlicher Technikgestaltung , 2000 .

[12]  E. L. David,et al.  Public participation in decision-making. , 1972 .

[13]  L. Hanssen,et al.  Genes for your food, food for your genes : societal issues and dilemmas in food genomics , 2003 .

[14]  T. Webler,et al.  A novel approach to reducing uncertainty: The group Delphi☆ , 1991 .

[15]  Lieve Goorden,et al.  Biotechnologie en het debat anno 2002, een vooruitblik , 2002 .

[16]  Armin Grunwald,et al.  Vision Assessment: Shaping Technology in 21st Century Society , 2000 .

[17]  David Cope.  Parliaments and Technology Assessment , 2002 .

[18]  Roland Wagner-Döbler.  Das Dilemma der Technikkontrolle : Wirkungen der Technikentwicklung und Probleme der Technologiepolitik , 1989 .

[19]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure , 1993, Policy Sciences.

[20]  Daniel J. Fiorino.  Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms , 1990 .

[21]  M. Weisbord,et al.  Future Search: An Action Guide to Finding Common Ground in Organizations and Communities , 1995 .

[22]  Armin Grunwald,et al.  Nachhaltigkeitsprobleme in Deutschland : Analyse und Lösungsstrategien , 2003 .

[23]  Michael Decker,et al.  Interdisciplinarity in technology assessment : implementation and its chances and limits , 2001 .

[24]  R. van Est,et al.  The Netherlands : seeking to involve wider publics in technology assessment , 2002 .

[25]  D Bütschi,et al.  [Transplantation medicine: a social debate]. , 2001, Revue medicale de la Suisse romande.

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

[27]  J. Farman,et al.  Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000 , 2002 .

[28]  James B. Freeman,et al.  Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments , 1991 .