Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA)

Innovationsmitgestaltung als Prozess gesellschaftlicher Aufklärung und Erwartungsmoderation

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbuch Innovationsforschung

  • 182 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) ist eine Vorgehensweise für die vorausschauende Gestaltung von Technologien und anderen Innovationsbereichen. Solide Forschung im Vorfeld ist entscheidend für die Qualität der Interaktion mit den Teilnehmenden. Gegenstand von CTA-Interaktionen sind häufig Szenarien: hochverdichtete Narrative von sozio-technischen Konfigurationen, Innovationspfadkarten oder Innovationswertschöpfungsketten.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Wenn im Folgenden von CTA gesprochen wird, ist CINA stets mit gemeint, sofern nicht ausdrücklich anders angegeben.

Literatur

  • Aukes, Ewert, Peter Stegmaier, und Christian Schleyer. 2020a. Ecosystem Services Governance Navigator & Manual for its Use. InnoForESt Deliverable 5.5. https://innoforest.eu/repository/d5-5/. Zugegriffen am 04.01.2021.

  • Aukes, Ewert, Peter Stegmaier, und Christian Schleyer. 2020b. Final report on CINA workshops for ecosystem service governance innovations: Lessons learned. InnoForESt Deliverable 5.3. https://innoforest.eu/repository/d5-3/. Zugegriffen am 04.01.2021.

  • Aukes, Ewert, Peter Stegmaier, und Christian Schleyer. 2020c. Set of reports on CINA workshop findings in case study regions, compiled for ongoing co-design and knowledge exchange. InnoForESt Deliverable 4.2. https://innoforest.eu/repository/d4-2-overview/. Zugegriffen am 04.01.2021.

  • Bijker, Wiebe. 2014. Technology assessment: The state of play. Towards hybrid and pluriform process of governance of science and technology. In Technology assessment and policy areas of great transitions. Proceedings from the PACITA 2013 conference in Prague, Hrsg. Tomas Michalek, Lenka Hebakova, Leonhard Hennen, Constanze Scherz, Linda Lierling und Julia Hahn, 23–36. Prag: Technology Centre ASCR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge, David. 1980. The social control of technology. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damm, Andrea, Judith Köberl, Peter Stegmaier, Elisa Alonso Jiménez, und Atte Harjanne. 2019. The market for climate services in the tourism sector – An analysis of Austrian stakeholders’ perceptions. Climate Services 17:100094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deuten, J. Jasper, Arie Rip, und Jaap Jelsma. 1997. Societal embedding and product creation management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 9(2): 131–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, Giovanni. 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy 11:147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Erik, und Arie Rip. 2013. Responsible innovation: Multi-level dynamics and soft intervention practices. In Responsible innovation. Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society, Hrsg. Richard Owen, John Bessant und Maggy Heintz, 165–183. Chichester: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Erik, Roop L. Mahajan, und Carl Mitcham. 2006. Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26(6): 485–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garud, Raghu, und David Ahlstrom. 1997. Technology assessment: A socio-cognitive perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 14(1): 25–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, Frank W. 2011. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1(1): 24–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, Frank W., und Johan Schot. 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy 36(3): 399–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, Frank Walter. 2006. Co-evolutionary and multi-level dynamics in transitions: The transformation of aviation systems and the shift from propeller to turbojet (1930–1970). Technovation 26(9): 999–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gümüscü, Burcu. 2016. Lab-on-a-chip devices with patterned hydrogels. Engineered microarrays for biomolecule fractionation, organ-on-chip and desalination. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, Enschede.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, David H., und Daniel Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24(1/2): 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hack, Lothar. 1995. TA als theoriegeleitete Interventionsstrategie. Der Ansatz des „Constructive technology assessment/CTA“ in der sozialwissenschaftlichen Technikdebatte. Karlsruhe: Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe (Wissenschaftliche Berichte, FZKA 5641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamaker-Taylor, Robin, Adriaan Perrels, Laura Canevari, Väinö Nurmi, Tuukka Rautio, Amanda Rycerz, und Francesca Larosa. 2018. Results of explorations of the CS market for the financial sector. EU-MACS deliverable 2.1. http://eu-macs.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/EUMACS_D21_FINAL.pdf. Zugegriffen am 02.12.2019.

  • Hennen, Leonhard, und Linda Nierling. 2014. Expanding the TA Landscape. Barriers and opportunities for establishing technology assessment in seven European countries. In Technology assessment and policy areas of great transitions proceedings from the PACITA 2013 conference in Prague, Hrsg. Tomáš Michalek, Leonhard Hennen, Constanze Scherz, Linda Nierling und Julia Hahn, 67–73. Prague: Technology Centre ASCR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Héretier, Adrienne. 1993. Policy-Analyse. Elemente der Kritik und Perspektiven der Neuorientierung. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 24:9–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulshof, Frits. 2016. Topochip: Technology for instructing cell fate and morphology via designed surface topography. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente: Enschede.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004. States of knowledge. The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on nature. Science and democracy in europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, Stephen J., und Nathan Rosenberg. 1986. An overview of innovation. In The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth, Hrsg. Ralph Landau und Nathan Rosenberg, 275–305. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlmann, Stefan, Patries Boekholt, Luke Georghiou, Ken Guy, Jean-Alain Héraud, Philippe Laredo, Tarmo Lemola, Denis Loveridge, Terttu Luukkonen, Wolfgang Polt, Arie Rip, Luis Sanz-Menendez, und Ruud E. Smits. 1999. Improving distributed intelligence in complex innovation systems. Final report of the advanced science & technology policy planning network (ASTPP), a thematic network of the european targeted socio-economic research programme (TSER). Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ISI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlmann, Stefan, Peter Stegmaier, und Kornelia Konrad. 2019. The tentative governance of emerging science and technology – A conceptual introduction. Research Policy (5): 1091–1097.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Lente, Harro, und Jon van Til. 2007. A combined roadmapping-cluster approach for emerging technologies. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 3(2): 121–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marris, Claire, Pierre-Benoît Joly, und Arie Rip. 2008. Interactive technology assessment in the real world. Dual dynamics in an iTA exercise on genetically modified vines. Science, Technology & Human Values 33:77–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parandian, Alireza. 2012. Constructive TA of newly emerging technologies. Stimulating learning by anticipation through bridging events. Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Delft, Delft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parandian, Alireza, Arie Rip, und Haico Te Kulve. 2012. Dual dynamics of promises and waiting games around emerging nanotechnologies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 24(6): 565–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, Arie. 2011. Science institutions and grand challenges of society: A scenario. Asian Research Policy 2:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, Arie. 2012. The context of innovation journeys. Creativity and Innovation Management 21(2): 158–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, Arie. 2018. Futures of science and technology in society. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, Arie, und Haico Te Kulve. 2008. Constructive technology assessment and socio-technical scenarios. In Constructive technology assessment and socio-technical scenarios, Hrsg. Erik Fisher, Cynthia Selin und Jameson Wetmore, 49–70. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, Arie, und Henk van den Belt. 1986. Constructive technology assessment: Influencing technological development? Journal für Entwicklungspolitik 3:24–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, Arie, Thomas J. Misa, und Johan Schot, Hrsg. 1995. Managing technology in society. The approach of constructive technology assessment. London/New York: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, Arie. 2002. A co-evolutionary perspective on ELSI, CTA and other attempts at re-contextualisation of science and technology in society. Paper presented to the meeting of the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology, York, 31 July – 3 August 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, Douglas K. R. 2010. Constructive technology assessment of emerging nanotechnologies. Experiments in interactions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, Enschede.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, Douglas K. R., und Tilo Propp. 2008. Multi-path mapping for alignment strategies in emerging science and technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75(4): 517–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulze, Greiving, Verena, Douglas K. R. Robinson, und Séverine Le Gac. 2016. ‚CTA-lite‘ for exploring possible innovation pathways of a nanomedicine-related platform – embedded responsible research and innovation in practice. In Responsibility and emerging technologies: Experiences, education and beyond, Hrsg. Diana M. Bowman, Anne Dijkstra, Camilo Fautz, Julia S. Guivant, Kornelia Konrad, Harro van Lente und Silvia Woll, 25–42. Berlin: AKA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smits, Ruud. 1992. Technikfolgen-Abschätzung in den Niederlanden mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Niederländischen Organisation für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung (NOTA). In Technikfolgen-Abschätzung als Technikforschung und Politikberatung, Hrsg. Petermann, Bd. 1, 253–270. Karlsruhe: Veröffentlichungen der AFAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegmaier, Peter. 2009. The rock ‚n‘ roll of knowledge co-production. EMBO Reports 10(2): 114–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stegmaier, Peter, Stefan Kuhlmann, und Vincent R. Visser. 2014. The Discontinuation of socio-technical systems as governance problem. In Governance of systems change, Hrsg. Susanna Borrás und Jakob Edler, 111–131. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Te Kulve, Haico. 2011. Anticipatory interventions and the co-evolution of nanotechnology and society. Enschede: Ipskamp.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Te Kulve, Haico. 2014. Anticipating market introduction of nanotechnology-enabled drug delivery systems. In Application of nanotechnology in drug delivery, Hrsg. A. Demir Sezer, 501–524. London: IntechOpen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Te Kulve, Haico, und Kornelia Konrad. 2017. Sectoral demand articulation: The case of emerging sensor technologies in the drinking water sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 119:154–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnheim, Bruno, und Frank W. Geels. 2012. Regime destabilisation as the flipside of energy transitions: Lessons from the history of the British coal industry (1913–1997). Energy Policy 50:35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Poel, Ibo. 2000. On the role of outsiders in technical development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 12(3): 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Merkerk, Rutger O. und Douglas K. R. Robinson. 2006. Characterizing the emergence of a technological field: Expectations, agendas and networks in Lab-on-a-chip technologies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18(3–4): 411–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vergragt, Philip, und Peter Groenewegen. 1989. New technological development and technology assessment: A plea for an integrated research. PROJECT Appraisal 4(1): 29–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visscher, Klaasjan. 2020. Theatrical technology assessment. A role-play simulation for bridging the gap between technology and society in interdisciplinary engineeing education. Science, Technology & Policy Studies – STePS Working Paper Series 01/20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visscher, Klaasjan, Peter Stegmaier, Andrea Damm, Robin Hamaker-Taylor, Atte Harjanne, und Raffaele Giordanao. 2020. Climate services. Matching supply and demand: A typology of climate services. Climate Services 17:100136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, Brian. 1975. The rhetoric of consensus politics: A critical review of technology assessment. Research Policy 4:108–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Technology, Policy and Society (TPS), Section of Science, Technology and Policy Studies, University of Twente, Enschede, Niederlande

    Peter Stegmaier

Authors
  1. Peter Stegmaier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Stegmaier .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Inst für Soziologie Campus Westend PEG, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt Inst für Soziologie Campus Westend PEG, Frankfurt, Hessen, Germany

    Birgit Blättel-Mink

  2. Institut für Soziologie, TU Berlin Institut für Soziologie, Berlin, Germany

    Ingo Schulz-Schaeffer

  3. Institut für Soziologie, TU Berlin Institut für Soziologie, Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Arnold Windeler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Stegmaier, P. (2020). Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA). In: Blättel-Mink, B., Schulz-Schaeffer, I., Windeler, A. (eds) Handbuch Innovationsforschung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17671-6_20-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17671-6_20-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-17671-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-17671-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Referenz Naturwissenschaften

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation