Abstract
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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Biesboer F et al. (1999) Clones and cloning: the Dutch debate. The Hague: Rathenau Institute; Working document 70
Bröchler S, Simonis G, Sundermann K (eds) (1999) Handbuch Technikfolgenabschätzung. Edition Sigma, Berlin
Bütschi D, Mosimann F (2001) Médecine de transplantation: un débat de société, In: Revue médicale de la suisse romande, 121, pp 91–94
Carius R, Renn O (2003) Partizipative Risikokommunikation. Wege zu einer risikomündigen Gesellschaft. Bundesgesundheitsblatt. Springer, Berlin
Coenen R, Grunwald A (2003) Nachhaltigkeitsprobleme in Deutschland. Analyse und Lösungsstrategien. Edition Sigma, Berlin
Decker M (ed) (2001) Interdisciplinarity in Technology Assessment. Implementation and its chances and limits. Springer, Berlin
Decker M, Grunwald A (2001) Rational Technology Assessment as Interdisciplinary Research. In: Decker ( 2001 ), pp 33–67
Decker M, Neumann-Held E (2003) Between Expert TA and Expert Dilemma —A Plea for Expertise. In: Bechmann G, Hronsky I (eds) Expertise and its Interfaces. The tense relationship of Science and Politics. Edition sigma, Berlin
Dienel P C (1989) “Contributing to Social Decision Methodology: Citizen Reports on Technological Projects”. In: Vlek C, Cvetkovich G (eds) Social Decision Methodology for Technological Projects. Kluwer Academic Press: Dordrecht pp 133–150
Fiorino D J (1990) “Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms”, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 15, No.2, Spring, 226–243
Fischhoff B (1996) “Public Values in Risk Research” In• Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Special Issue, Kunreuther H, Slovic P (eds) Challenges in Risk Assessment and Risk Management. Sage: Thousand Oaks, pp 75–84
Freeman JB (1991) Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments. Foris, Dordrecht
Gethmann C F, Sander T (1999) Rechtfertigungsdiskurse. In: Grunwald A, Saupe S (ed) Ethik in der echnikgestaltung. Praktische Relevanz und Legitimation. Springer, Berlin
Goorden L, van Gelder S et al. (2003) Genetisch gewijzigd voedsel in Vlaanderen. Retrospectieve trendanalyse van het maatschappelijk debat; Brussels, viWTA rapport nr. 1
Gram S (1998) Urban Traffic — a wish for political coordination. The Danish Board of Technology, Copenhagen
Grin J, van de Graaf H, Hoppe R (1997) Technology Assessment through interaction: A guide. The Hague: Rathenau Institute; Working document 57
Grin J, Grunwald A (eds) (2000) Vision Assessment: Shaping Technology in the 21st Century Society. Towards a Repertoire for Technology Assessment. Springer, Berlin
Grunwald A (ed) (1999) Rationale Technikfolgenbeurteilung. Konzepte und methodische Grundlagen. Springer, Berlin
Grunwald A (2002) Technikfolgenabschätzung — Eine Einführung. Edition Sigma, Berlin
Grunwald A (2000) Technik für die Gesellschaft von morgen. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen gesellschaftlicher Technikgestaltung. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/New York
Harremoës et al. (2001) Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896–2000. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency (EEA). Environmental issue report No. 22
Hüsing B, Engels E M, Frietsch R, Gaisser S, Menrad K, Rubin-Lucht B, Schweizer R (2003) Menschliche Stammzellen. Bern: TA-SWISS, Report TA 44 /2003
Joss S, Bellucci S (eds) (2002), Participatory Technology Assessment — European Perspectives. Centre for the Study of Democracy ( C SD) at University of Westminster in association with TA Swiss, London
Joss S, Brownlea A (1998) Verfahrensgerechtigkeit in der partizipativen Technikfolgenabschätzung am Beispiel des Publiforum Strom und Gesellschaft. Konzepterarbeitung und Evaluation, TA-SWISS, TA-DT 22 /1998
Keeney RL (1996) “The Role of Values in Risk Management”. In: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Special Issue
Kunreuther H, Slovic P (eds) Challenges in Risk Assessment and Risk Management, Sage: Thousand Oaks, pp 126–134
Nennen HU, Garbe D (1996) Das Expertendilemma: Zur Rolle wissenschaftlicher Gutachter in der öffentlichen Meinungsbildung. Springer, Berlin
Paschen H, Vig N (eds) (1999) Parliaments and Technology Assessment. The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. State University of New York Press, Albany
Renn O, Webler T (1998) Der kooperative Diskurs — Theoretische Grundlagen, Anforderungen, Möglichkeiten. In: Renn O, Kastenholz H, Schild P, Wilhelm U (eds) Abfallpolitik im kooperativen Diskurs. Vdf ETH Zürich
Renn O, Webler T (1994) Konfliktbewältigung durch Kooperation in der Umweltpolitik. Theoretische Grundlagen und Handlungsvorschläge. In: OIKOS, Umweltökonomische Studenteninitiative an der HSG (ed) Kooperationen für die Umwelt. Im Dialog zum Handeln, Rüegger, Zürich
Renn O, Webler T, Rakel H, Dienel P C, Johnson B (1993) Public Participation in Decision Making: A Three-Step-Procedure. Policy Sciences, 26, 189–214
Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P (eds) (1995) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Renn O, Schrimpf M, Büttner Th, Carius R, Köberle S, Oppermann B, Schneider E, Zöller K (1999) Abfallwirtschaft 2005. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Ropohl G (1979/1999) Allgemeine Technologie. Eine Systemtheorie der Technik. Hanser, München. Older version: Eine Systemtheorie der Technik. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt
Slocum N, Beyne C, Steyaert S (eds) (2003) Participatory Methods Toolkit. A practitioner’s manual. Brussels, viWTA — KBS
Steyaert S, Weyns W (eds) (2003) Public Forum. New impulses for the debate on genetically modified food (final report of the public panel). Brussels, viWTA rapport nr. 2, p 42
TA-SWISS (2003) TA-SWISS Portät. Akteure und Abläufe bei Projekten des Zentrum für Technologiefolgen-Abschätzung, Bern, TA-SWISS, TA-DT 30 /2003
TATuP (2003) Special Issue 1/2003 of “Technikfolgenabschätzung —Theorie und Praxis” on Technology Foresight, edited by Knud Böhle and Michael Rader
Toulmin S (1958) The uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Vandenabeele J, Goorden L (2001) Leken en experten uitgedaagd? Evaluatie van door VIB georganiseerde debatavonden over biotechnologie in landbouw en voeding. Antwerpen, Zwijnaarde, UA — VIB, p 52
Vandenabeele J, Goorden L (2002) Biotechnologie en het debat anno 2002. Een vooruitblik. Antwerpen, Zwijnaarde, UA — VIB, p 55
Van Est R, Hanssen L, Crapels O (eds) (2003) Genes for your food — Food for your genes. Societal issues and dilemmas in food genomics. The Hague: Rathenau Institute, Working document 92
Van Est R et al. (2002) “The Netherlands: Seeking to involve wider publics in Technology Assessment”. In: Joss S, Bellucci S (eds) Participatory Technology Assessment: European perspectives. Centre for the Study of Democracy, London
Van Rooy P, Sterrenberg L (2002) Het blauwe goud verzilveren. Aanzet voor kennisfusie voor intergraal waterbeheer. The Hague: Rathenau Institute, internal report
Wagner-Döbler R (1989) Das Dilemma der Technikkontrolle. Edition Sigma, Berlin
Webler Th, Levine D, Rakel, H, Renn 0 (1991) The Group Delphi: A Novel Attempt at Reducing Uncertainty, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 39, No. 3, pp 253–263
Weisbord MR, Janoff S (1995) Future Search and action guide to finding common ground in organizations and communities. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bütschi, D. et al. (2004). The Practice of TA; Science, Interaction, and Communication. 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_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-06171-8_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-05960-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-06171-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive