IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v139y2019icp32-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy advice in technology assessment: Shifting roles, principles and boundaries

Author

Listed:
  • Bauer, Anja
  • Kastenhofer, Karen

Abstract

Over past decades, the notion of policy advice in technology assessment (TA) has widened, going beyond traditional advice in the form of expert opinions by adding a broad range of brokerage activities. Concomitantly, the roles of scientific policy advisors have diversified.

Suggested Citation

  • Bauer, Anja & Kastenhofer, Karen, 2019. "Policy advice in technology assessment: Shifting roles, principles and boundaries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 32-41.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:139:y:2019:i:c:p:32-41
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162518300325
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.023?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Hoppe, 1999. "Policy analysis, science and politics: from ‘speaking truth to power’ to ‘making sense together’," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 201-210, June.
    2. Spruijt, Pita & Knol, Anne B. & Petersen, Arthur C. & Lebret, Erik, 2016. "Differences in views of experts about their role in particulate matter policy advice: Empirical evidence from an international expert consultation," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 44-52.
    3. Pita Spruijt & Anne B. Knol & René Torenvlied & Erik Lebret, 2013. "Different Roles and Viewpoints of Scientific Experts in Advising on Environmental Health Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1844-1857, October.
    4. Eva-Maria Kunseler, 2016. "Revealing a paradox in scientific advice to governments: the struggle between modernist and reflexive logics within the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 2(1), pages 1-9, December.
    5. repec:pal:palcom:v:2016:y:2016:i:palcomms201629:p:16029- is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Esther Turnhout & Marian Stuiver & Judith Klostermann & Bette Harms & Cees Leeuwis, 2013. "New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge brokering," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(3), pages 354-365, February.
    7. Peter Weingart, 1999. "Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 151-161, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Oliver Parodi & Paula Bögel & Richard Beecroft & Andreas Seebacher & Felix Wagner & Julia Hahn, 2022. "Reflexive Sustainable Technology Labs: Combining Real-World Labs, Technology Assessment, and Responsible Research and Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-14, November.
    2. Ahn, Sang-Jin & Yoon, Ho Young & Lee, Young-Joo, 2021. "Text mining as a tool for real-time technology assessment: Application to the cross-national comparative study on artificial organ technology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    3. Kraus, Sascha & Kumar, Satish & Lim, Weng Marc & Kaur, Jaspreet & Sharma, Anuj & Schiavone, Francesco, 2023. "From moon landing to metaverse: Tracing the evolution of Technological Forecasting and Social Change," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    4. Christoph Kehl & Steffen Albrecht & Pauline Riousset & Arnold Sauter, 2021. "Goodbye Expert-Based Policy Advice? Challenges in Advising Governmental Institutions in Times of Transformation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Karaulova, Maria & Edler, Jakob, 2023. "Bringing research into policy: Understanding context-specific requirements for productive knowledge brokering in legislatures," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 77, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sander C. S. Clahsen & Irene van Kamp & Betty C. Hakkert & Theo G. Vermeire & Aldert H. Piersma & Erik Lebret, 2019. "Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 439-461, February.
    2. Roberto Barraza & Gilberto Velazquez-Angulo & Edith Flores-Tavizón & Jaime Romero-González & José Ignacio Huertas-Cardozo, 2016. "The Role of Science in Advising the Decision Making Process: A Pathway for Building Effective Climate Change Mitigation Policies in Mexico at the Local Level," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-12, April.
    3. Pita Spruijt & Anne B. Knol & Arthur C. Petersen & Erik Lebret, 2019. "Expert Views on Their Role as Policy Advisor: Pilot Study for the Cases of Electromagnetic Fields, Particulate Matter, and Antimicrobial Resistance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(5), pages 968-974, May.
    4. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    5. Moes, Floortje & Houwaart, Eddy & Delnoij, Diana & Horstman, Klasien, 2020. "Questions regarding ‘epistemic injustice’ in knowledge-intensive policymaking: Two examples from Dutch health insurance policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    6. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    7. K. L. Akerlof & Alessandro Allegra & Selena Nelson & Cameryn Gonnella & Carla Washbourne & Chris Tyler, 2022. "Global perspectives on scientists’ roles in legislative policymaking," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(2), pages 351-367, June.
    8. Serhat Burmaoglu & Ozcan Saritas, 2019. "An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 823-847, March.
    9. Kate Dooley & Aarti Gupta, 2017. "Governing by expertise: the contested politics of (accounting for) land-based mitigation in a new climate agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 483-500, August.
    10. Chuanshen Qin & Jianhua Xu & Gabrielle Wong‐Parodi & Lan Xue, 2020. "Change in Public Concern and Responsive Behaviors Toward Air Pollution Under the Dome," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1983-2001, October.
    11. Amy A. Quark & Rachel Lienesch, 2017. "Scientific boundary work and food regime transitions: the double movement and the science of food safety regulation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(3), pages 645-661, September.
    12. Bart Rijken & Edwin Buitelaar & Lianne van Duinen, 2020. "Exploring the feasibility of future housing development within existing cities," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(2), pages 336-351, February.
    13. Colebatch H.K., 2017. "Policy, learning and regime change: Western concepts and CEE experience," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 11(2), pages 2-10, December.
    14. Anna Wesselink & Hal Colebatch & Warren Pearce, 2014. "Evidence and policy: discourses, meanings and practices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 339-344, December.
    15. Aurélien Goutsmedt & Francesco Sergi & François Claveau & Clément Fontan, 2023. "The Different Paths of Central Bank Scientization: The Case of the Bank of England," Working Papers hal-04267004, HAL.
    16. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild & Werner Marx, 2016. "Policy documents as sources for measuring societal impact: how often is climate change research mentioned in policy-related documents?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1477-1495, December.
    17. Thomas V Maher & Charles Seguin & Yongjun Zhang & Andrew P Davis, 2020. "Social scientists’ testimony before Congress in the United States between 1946-2016, trends from a new dataset," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-13, March.
    18. Jingjing Zeng & Guihua Huang, 2024. "Bureaucratic biases in trust of expert policy advice: a randomized controlled experiment based on Chinese think tank reports," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 305-351, June.
    19. Joanne Vinke‐de Kruijf & Laura Verbrugge & Barbara Schröter & Robert‐Jan den Haan & Juliette Cortes Arevalo & Jan Fliervoet & Jennifer Henze & Christian Albert, 2022. "Knowledge co‐production and researcher roles in transdisciplinary environmental management projects," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 393-405, April.
    20. Sedlačko Michal & Staroňová Katarína, 2015. "An Overview of Discourses on Knowledge in Policy: Thinking Knowledge, Policy and Conflict Together," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 9(2), pages 10-31, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:139:y:2019:i:c:p:32-41. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.