IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v33y2011i1p36-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Parliamentary technology assessment institutions as indications of reflexive modernization

Author

Listed:
  • Delvenne, Pierre
  • Fallon, Catherine
  • Brunet, Sébastien

Abstract

This article links the theory of reflexive modernization to Parliamentary Technology Assessment (PTA) by considering the latter as an indication of modern Western societies becoming more reflexive, that is, acknowledging and responding to the limitations of modern traditions by institutionalizing new processes of technology assessment to address a realm of change where uncertainty is no longer contained within modern structures. Our conceptual framework must address both the emergence and functioning of PTA in the form of institutions and the practices that are pursued within (or around, and linked to) such institutions, with due attention being paid to the multiple approaches currently being debated around the transformation of modernity and reflexivity. Reflexive modernization offers a relevant theoretical approach to analyzing hybrid entities like PTA institutions. We demonstrate this by analyzing three such institutions (Science and Technology Options Assessment [STOA, European Parliament], Institute for Society and Technology [IST, Flanders, Belgium] and Rathenau Institute [The Netherlands]), mapping their different approaches and practices in terms of features of reflexive modernization. There appears to be an overall reflexivity pathway, on which some PTAs have moved farther than others, but their progress is fractured by the resilience of modern institutions. We conclude that to ensure their role in the current institutional landscapes of evolving modern societies, the most important thing for PTA institutions is therefore to somehow develop a relevant approach while dealing with the necessary margin of maneuver for further adaptation and transformation.

Suggested Citation

  • Delvenne, Pierre & Fallon, Catherine & Brunet, Sébastien, 2011. "Parliamentary technology assessment institutions as indications of reflexive modernization," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 36-43.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:33:y:2011:i:1:p:36-43
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.03.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X11000054
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.03.004?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. Leonhard Hennen, 1999. "Participatory technology assessment: A response to technical modernity?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 303-312, October.
    2. Armin Grunwald, 2006. "Scientific independence as a constitutive part of parliamentary technology assessment," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 103-113, March.
    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. Delvenne, Pierre & Parotte, Céline, 2019. "Breaking the myth of neutrality: Technology Assessment has politics, Technology Assessment as politics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 64-72.
    2. Gregor Wolbring, 2022. "Auditing the ‘Social’ of Quantum Technologies: A Scoping Review," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-38, March.
    3. Howell, Jordan P., 2012. "Risk society without reflexive modernization? The case from northwestern Michigan," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 185-195.

    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. Susana Martins Moretto, 2011. "Societal embedding in high-speed train technology development: dominant perspective from a case study," Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, vol. 7(7), pages 57-73, November.
    2. van Oudheusden, Michiel & Charlier, Nathan & Rosskamp, Benedikt & Delvenne, Pierre, 2015. "Broadening, deepening, and governing innovation: Flemish technology assessment in historical and socio-political perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1877-1886.
    3. Rose, Gloria & Gazsó, André, 2019. "Governing nanosafety in Austria – Striving for neutrality in the NanoTrust project," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 23-31.
    4. Boon, Wouter P.C. & Moors, Ellen H.M. & Kuhlmann, Stefan & Smits, Ruud E.H.M., 2011. "Demand articulation in emerging technologies: Intermediary user organisations as co-producers?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 242-252, March.
    5. Armin Grunwald, 2021. "Research and Scientific Advice in the Second Modernity: Technology Assessment, Responsible Research and Innovation, and Sustainability Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-12, September.
    6. Rochelle Deloria & Gregor Wolbring, 2019. "Neuro-Advancements and the Role of Nurses as Stated in Academic Literature and Canadian Newspapers," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-32, August.
    7. Delvenne, Pierre & Parotte, Céline, 2019. "Breaking the myth of neutrality: Technology Assessment has politics, Technology Assessment as politics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 64-72.
    8. Chris Groves & Lori Frater & Robert Lee & Elen Stokes, 2011. "Is There Room at the Bottom for CSR? Corporate Social Responsibility and Nanotechnology in the UK," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 101(4), pages 525-552, July.
    9. Tavella, Elena, 2016. "How to make Participatory Technology Assessment in agriculture more “participatory”: The case of genetically modified plants," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 119-126.
    10. Scott Miles, 2011. "Participatory model assessment of earthquake-induced landslide hazard models," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 56(3), pages 749-766, March.
    11. Gregor Wolbring, 2022. "Auditing the ‘Social’ of Quantum Technologies: A Scoping Review," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-38, March.
    12. 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).
    13. Feng-Shang Wu & Hong-Ji Huang, 2024. "Why Do Some Countries Innovate Better than Others? A New Perspective of Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy Regimes and National Absorptive Capacity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-30, March.
    14. 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.
    15. Gaunand, A. & Hocdé, A. & Lemarié, S. & Matt, M. & Turckheim, E.de, 2015. "How does public agricultural research impact society? A characterization of various patterns," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 849-861.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:teinso:v:33:y:2011:i:1:p:36-43. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    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.