Advertisement

Strategische und konstruktive Technikfolgenabschätzung

Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Technikfolgenabschätzung (Technology Assessment, TA) soll Gestaltern, Nutzern und Entscheidungsträgern in Gesellschaft, Wissenschaft, Wirtschaft und Politik Einsichten und Wissen liefern, um geeignete Innovationsstrategien zu entwickeln. TA soll die Entscheidungsfindung erleichtern und die gesellschaftliche Einbettung technologischer Innovationsprozesse unterstützen.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Benz, A. (2006): Governance in connected arenas – political science analysis of coordination and control in complex control systems. In: Jansen, D. (Hg.): New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations. From Disciplinary Theories towards Interfaces and Integration, Heidelberg, New York (Springer), 3–22.Google Scholar
  2. Boon , W.; Moors, E. H.; Kuhlmann, S.; Smits, R. E. (2011): Demand articulation in emerging technologies: intermediary user organisations as coproducers? In: Research Policy 40(2),242–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braun, D. (2006): Delegation in the distributive policy arena: the case of research policy. In: Braun, D.; Gilardi, F. (Hg.): Delegation in Contemporary Democracies. London (Routledge), 146–170.Google Scholar
  4. Callon, M. (1991): Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In: Law, J. (Hg.): A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London (Routledge), 132–165.Google Scholar
  5. Callon, M. (2005): Disabled persons of all countries, unite. In: Latour, B.; Weibel, P. (Hg.): Making Things public, Atmospheres of Democracy. Karlsruhe, Cambridge, Mass. (ZKM/MIT), 308–313.Google Scholar
  6. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003): Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA (Harvard Business School).Google Scholar
  7. Collingridge, D. (1980): The Social Control of Technology. London, New York (Pinter).Google Scholar
  8. Dosi, G. (1982): Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested Interpretation of Determinants and Directions of technical Change. In: Research Policy 11(3),147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edler , J.; Joly, P.-B.; Kuhlmann, S.; Nedeva, M.; Propp, T.; Rip, A.; Ruhland, S.; Thomas, D. (2006): Understanding „Fora of Strategic Intelligence for Research and Innovation“. The PRIME Forum Research Project, Karlsruhe (Fraunhofer ISI).Google Scholar
  10. Elzen , B.; Geels, F. W.; Hofman, P.; Green, K. (2004). Sociotechnical scenarios as a tool for transition policy: An example from the traffic and transport domain. In: Elzen, B.;Geels, P.; Green, K. (Hg.): System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy. Cheltenham (Edward Elgar), 251–281.Google Scholar
  11. Elzen, B. (2006): Combining technical and behavioral change: The Role of Experimental Projects as a Step Stone Towards Sustainable Mobility. In: Verbeek, P. P., Slob, A. (Hg.): User Behavior and Technology Development. Shaping Sustainable Relations Between Consumers and Technologies (Ecoefficiency in industry and science, 20). Dordrecht (Springer), 331–339.Google Scholar
  12. Felt , U.; Wynne, B; Callon, M.; Gonçalves, M. E.; Jasanoff, S.; Jepsen, M.; Joly, P.-B.; Konopasek, Z.; May, S.; Neubauer, C.; Rip, A.; Siune, K.; Stirling, A.; Tallachini, M. (2007): Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance. Brüssel (European Commission), http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/european-knowledge-society_en.pdf (Zugriff 25. 01. 2013).
  13. Geels , F. W.; Schot, J. (2007): Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. In: Research Policy 36(3),399–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gershenfeld, N. A. (2005): Fab: the coming revolution on your desktop—from personal computers to personal fabrication. New York (Basic Books).Google Scholar
  15. Joly , P. B.; Rip, A. (2007): A timely harvest. In: Nature 450(8),174.Google Scholar
  16. Kemp , R.; Schot, J.; Hoogma, R. (1998): Regime Shifts to Sustainability Through Processes of Niche Formation: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management. In: Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 10(2),175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuhlmann, S. (2003): Evaluation as a Source of „Strategic Intelligence“. In: Shapira, Ph., Kuhlmann, S. (Hg.): Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation: Experiences from the United States and Europe. Cheltenham (Edward Elgar), 352–379.Google Scholar
  18. Kuhlmann, S. (2007): Governance of innovation: Practice, policy, and theory as dancing partners. Inaugural Lecture, University of Twente, http://doc.utwente.nl/59649/1/rede_S_Kuhlman.pdf (Zugriff 28. 01. 2013).
  19. Kuhlmann, S. (2010): TA als Tanz: Zur Governance technologischer Innovation. Neue Aufgaben des Technology Assessment. In: Aichholzer, G.; Bora, A.; Bröchler, S.; Decker, M.; Latzer, M. (Hg.): Technology Governance. Der Beitrag der Technikfolgenabschätzung. Berlin (edition sigma), 41–60.Google Scholar
  20. Kuhlmann, S. (2013): Innovation Policies (vis-á-vis Practice and Theory). In: Carayannis, E. D. (Hg.): Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship. o. O. (Springer Science + Business Media) i. E.Google Scholar
  21. Lüthje , C.; Herstatt, C.; von Hippel, E. (2005): User-innovators and „local“ information: The case of mountain biking. In: Research Policy 34(6),951–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin , B. R.; Nightingale, P.; Yegros-Yegros, A. (2012): Science and technology studies: Exploring the knowledge base. In: Research Policy 41(7),1182–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mayntz, R. (1998): New Challenges to Governance Theory. Florenz (European University Institute, The Robert Schuman Centre, Jean Monnet Chair Papers 50).Google Scholar
  24. Mayntz , R.; Scharpf, F. W . (1995): Der Ansatz des akteurzentrierten Institutionalismus. In: dieselben (Hg.): Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und politische Steuerung, Frankfurt, New York (Campus), 39–72.Google Scholar
  25. Nelson , R.; Winter, S. (1977): In search of a useful theory of innovation. In: Research Policy 6(1),36–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nowotny , H.; Testa, G. (2009): Die gläsernen Gene. Die Erfindung des Individuums im molekularen Zeitalter. Frankfurt (Suhrkamp, edition unseld 16).Google Scholar
  27. Oudshoorn , N.; Pinch, T. (Hg.) (2003): How Users Matter: The Co-construction of Users and Technologies. Cambridge, MA; London (MIT Press).Google Scholar
  28. Rabeharisoa , V.; Callon, M. (2004): Patients and scientists in French muscular dystrophy research. In: Jasanoff, S. (Hg.): States of Knowledge. The co-production of science and social order. London (Routledge), 142–160.Google Scholar
  29. Rip, A. (2001): Assessing the Impacts of Innovation: New Developments in Technology Assessment. In: OECD Proceedings, Social Sciences and Innovation, Paris (OECD), 197–213.Google Scholar
  30. Rip, A. (2006): A coevolutionary approach to reflexive governance – and its ironies. In: Voß, J.-P.; Bauknecht, D.; Kemp, R. (Hg.): Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Cheltenham UK (Edward Elgar), 82–100.Google Scholar
  31. Rip , A.; Kemp, R. (1998): Technological Change. In: Rayner, S.; Malone, L. (Hg.): Human Choice and Climate Change, Vol. 2, Resources and Technology, Washington DC (Batelle Press), 327–400.Google Scholar
  32. Robinson, D. (2010): Constructive Technology Assessment of Emerging Nanotechnologies. Experiments in Interactions. Enschede (University of Twente, PhD dissertation), http://doc.utwente.nl/74640/1/thesis_D_Robinson.pdf (Zugriff 28. 01. 2013).
  33. Scharpf, Fritz W. (2000): Interaktionsformen. Akteurzentrierter Institutionalismus in der Politikforschung. Opladen (Leske + Budrich).Google Scholar
  34. Scott, R. (1995): Institutions and Organizations, London (Sage).Google Scholar
  35. Smits , R.; van Merkerk, R.; Guston, D.; Sarewitz, D. (2010): Strategic Intelligence: The Role of TA in Systemic Innovation Policy. In: Smits, R., Kuhlmann, S.; Shapira, P. (Hg.): The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy: An International Research Handbook. Cheltenham; Northampton, MA (Edward Elgar), 387–416.Google Scholar
  36. te Kulve, H.; Rip, A. (2011): Constructing Productive Engagement: Pre-engagement Tools for Emerging Technologies. In: Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4),699–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van den Ende, J.; Kemp, R. (1999): Technological transformations in history: how the computer regime grew out of existing computing regimes. In: Research Policy 28(8),833–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van der Valk, T. (2007): Technology dynamics, network dynamics and partnering – The case of Dutch dedicated life sciences firms. Utrecht (Utrecht University).Google Scholar
  39. van Lente, H. (1993): Promising Technology: the dynamics of expectations in technological developments. Enschede (Universiteit Twente, WMW-Publikatie 17).Google Scholar
  40. van Merkerk, R.; Smits, R. (2008): Tailoring CTA for emerging technologies. In: Technological Forecasting & Social Change 75(3),312–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van Oost, E. C. J.; Verhaegh, S. J. S.; Oudshoorn, N. E. J. (2008): From Innovation Community to Community Innovation. User-initiated Innovation in Wireless Leiden. In: Science, technology and human values, 34(2),182–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. von Hippel, E. (2005): Democratizing innovation, Cambridge/Mass (MIT Press).Google Scholar
  43. Voß , J.-P.; Bauknecht, D.; Kemp, R. (Hg.) (2006): Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development, Cheltenham (Edward Elgar).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BielfeldDeutschland

Personalised recommendations