Constructive Technology Assessment and Technology Dynamics: The Case of Clean Technologies

A synthesis of neo-Schumpeterian evolutionary, sociological, and historical coevolution ary models could be used for constructive technology assessment, aimed at the active management of the process of technological change. This article proposes a synthetic quasi-evolutionary model, in which variation and selection are neither independent nor coincidental processes. Variation and selection are linked by actors, resulting in the actor role labeled technological nexus. On the basis of the quasi-evolutionary approach, three constructive technology assessment strategies are proposed: stimulating alternative variations, changing the selection environment, and creating or utilizing technological nexus. The usefulness of these concepts is demonstrated for the case of clean technolo gies. Ultimately, a conscious application of these strategies could result in a new actor role for government as a creative social regulator of technological change.

[1]  Nicholas A. Ashford,et al.  Using Regulation to Change the Market for Innovation , 1985 .

[2]  Ruud Smits,et al.  Key issues in the institutionalization of technology assessment: Development of technology assessment in five European countries and the USA , 1988 .

[3]  Ghislaine M. Lawrence.  The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology , 1989, Medical History.

[4]  G. Dosi.  Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change , 1982 .

[5]  Arie Rip,et al.  The Nelson-Winter-Dosi model and synthetic dye chemistry , 1987 .

[6]  Wesley A. Magat,et al.  The Effects of Environmental Regulation on Innovation , 1979 .

[7]  G. Dosi.  Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation , 1988 .

[8]  T. Pinch,et al.  The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other , 1984 .

[9]  Arnold Thackray,et al.  Technology's Storytellers: Reweaving the Human Fabric , 1986 .

[10]  Thomas P. Hughes,et al.  Networks Of Power , 1983 .

[11]  Howard E. Aldrich,et al.  Boundary Spanning Roles and Organization Structure , 1977 .

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

[13]  Eda Kranakis,et al.  Technology Assessment and the Study of History , 1988 .

[14]  T. P. Hughes,et al.  Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880-1930 , 1984 .

[15]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society , 1989 .

[16]  G. Dosi,et al.  Technical Change and Economic Theory , 1989 .

[17]  Rod Coombs,et al.  Economics and technological change , 1987 .

[18]  M. Callon.  The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle , 1986 .

[19]  J. Bradbury.  The Policy Implications of Differing Concepts of Risk , 1989 .

[20]  John Law,et al.  The Structure of Sociotechnical Engineering — A Review of the New Sociology of Technology , 1987 .

[21]  Thomas J. Misa,et al.  How Machines Make History, and how Historians (And Others) Help Them to Do So , 1988 .

[22]  C. Freeman.  Economics of Industrial Innovation , 1975 .

[23]  A.Bhanich Supapol,et al.  The commercialization of government-sponsored technologies: Canadian evidence , 1990 .

[24]  J. Law.  TECHNOLOGY AND HETEROGENEOUS ENGINEERING: THE CASE OF PORTUGUESE EXPANSION , 2018, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY STUDIES.

[25]  S. Winter,et al.  In search of useful theory of innovation , 1993 .

[26]  T. P. Hughes,et al.  Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society , 1984 .

[27]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  What We Have Learned from the Amsterdam Science Shop , 1987 .