Embracing variety
Introducing the inclusive modelling of (Parliamentary) technology assessment
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 15735909 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jurgen Ganzevles (Radboud University Nijmegen, corresponding author), Rinie van Est (0000-0002-3990-3042, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences), Michael Nentwich (0000-0003-2269-0076, Austrian Academy of Sciences) |
| Year | 2014 |
| Volume | 1 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 292-313 |
| Publication date | 2014-09-02 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Responsible Innovation (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2329-9037 • E-ISSN: 2329-9460 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/23299460.2014.968439 |
| OpenAlex | W2155243093 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 11 |
| References cited | 21 |
This article introduces an inclusive way of modelling (Parliamentary) Technology Assessment, (P)TA as developed in the European PACITA project. It incorporates interdependencies between and diversity among existing and potential (P)TA practices in a more inclusive and fine-grained way than existing literature does. We model (P)TA as a mediating function between the spheres of parliament, government, science and technology, and society. We suggest that this mediation takes place through a set of interaction mechanisms that include institutional, organizational and project dimensions. In this way, we distinguish among 15 potential interaction models for (P)TA. Our more inclusive way of modelling may be used to map and discuss fruitful evolutionary pathways for (P)TA in countries and regions where (P)TA already exists or where the ambassadorship for (P)TA is about to take off. In the conclusion, we reflect on the relevance of our modelling for the discourse on and practice of responsible innovation
Biology · Diversity (politics · Economics · Function (biology · Government (linguistics · Interdependence · Interoperability · Knowledge management · Management science · Mediation · Parliament · Political science · Politics · Public relations · Relevance (law · Responsible Research and Innovation · Set (abstract data type · Social science · Sociology · Variety (cybernetics · Computer Science · Innovation, Technology, and Society · Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development · Law · Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
Unlocking participation
A short response to van Lente, Swierstra and Joly’s essay ‘Responsible innovation as a critique of technology assessment’
Curtailing political short-termism in legislatures
Exploring Political Views on Synthetic Biology in the Netherlands
Bringing research into policy
A typology of advisory bodies in legislatures and research perspectives
Giving content to responsible innovation
Responsible research and innovation as a travesty of technology assessment
Imagining socio-technical futures – challenges and opportunities for technology assessment
Responsible innovation scholarship
Foresight and technology assessment for the Austrian parliament — Finding new ways of debating the future of industry 4.0
Between Politics and Science
Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation
The past and future of constructive technology assessment
Technikfolgenabschätzung - eine Einführung
Bridges between Science, Society and Policy
Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond
Controversies as Informal Technology A ssessment
New challenge or the past revisited
Parliamentary technology assessment institutions as indications of reflexive modernization
Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science
The Politics of Expertise in Congress
| Unique citing works | 11 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,92 |
| Citation span | 2014 - 2024 (11) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 10 |