IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v44y2016icp66-77.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Roadblocks to responsible innovation: Exploring technology assessment and adoption in U.S. public highway construction

Author

Listed:
  • Kimmel, Shawn C.
  • Toohey, Nathan M.
  • Delborne, Jason A.

Abstract

U.S. public highway construction industry professionals are responsible for assessing and adopting new technology that can improve the cost and quality of roadways. This paper investigates features of the technology assessment and adoption process in the U.S. public highway construction industry that both facilitate and hinder responsible innovation. Often technological innovations are incongruent with current specifications, i.e., regulatory construction standards, whereby specification reform serves as a precursor to implementation. We examine this aspect of technology assessment and adoption through a novel application of Kingdon's theory of policy agenda setting to a highly technical state bureaucratic institution using a case study on Intelligent Compaction. Specification reform relating to Intelligent Compaction is occurring in nearly a quarter of U.S. states. Analysis of interviews with industry professionals revealed that institutional incentives for supporting innovations were not the main drivers for adoption, and there exists a conservative culture that inhibits change. Individuals that go against this grain by championing change do so based on their personal character, ideological affiliations and a perceived sense of social obligation, which coincides with the principles set forth in the responsible research and innovation literature. These individuals, whom we identify as Kingdon's policy entrepreneurs, appear to present themselves in four roles in this industry: explorer, pioneer, gatekeeper, and leader. Our findings indicate that alignment of these roles creates an environment conducive to responsible technology assessment and adoption, and therefore greater societal benefit. Ultimately, we hope this study will benefit U.S. Highway Construction Industry regulatory environments by enhancing identification of specification processes, key roles, and personal/ethical ideologies that may be conducive to fostering a culture of responsible innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Kimmel, Shawn C. & Toohey, Nathan M. & Delborne, Jason A., 2016. "Roadblocks to responsible innovation: Exploring technology assessment and adoption in U.S. public highway construction," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 66-77.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:44:y:2016:i:c:p:66-77
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2015.12.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X15000962
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2015.12.002?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. Assefa, G. & Frostell, B., 2007. "Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: A case study of energy technologies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 63-78.
    2. Daim, Tugrul & Yates, Diane & Peng, Yicheng & Jimenez, Bertha, 2009. "Technology assessment for clean energy technologies: The case of the Pacific Northwest," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 232-243.
    3. Sharon M. Oster & John M. Quigley, 1977. "Regulatory Barriers to the Diffusion of Innovation: Some Evidence from Building Codes," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 8(2), pages 361-377, Autumn.
    4. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2009. "The cultural barriers to renewable energy and energy efficiency in the United States," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 365-373.
    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. Undheim, Trond Arne, 2024. "In search of better methods for the longitudinal assessment of tech-derived X-risks: How five leading scenario planning efforts can help," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    2. Miklós Lukovics & Beáta Udvari & Nikoletta Nádas & Erik Fisher, 2019. "Raising Awareness of Researchers-in-the-Making Toward Responsible Research and Innovation," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(4), pages 1558-1577, December.
    3. Loureiro, Paulo Maia & Conceição, Cristina Palma, 2019. "Emerging patterns in the academic literature on responsible research and innovation," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    4. Yang, Kun & Wang, Wan & Xiong, Wan, 2021. "Promoting the sustainable development of infrastructure projects through responsible innovation: An evolutionary game analysis," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    5. Duygan, Mert & Fischer, Manuel & Ingold, Karin, 2023. "Assessing the readiness of municipalities for digital process innovation," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    6. Nihit Goyal & Michael Howlett & Namrata Chindarkar, 2020. "Who coupled which stream(s)? Policy entrepreneurship and innovation in the energy–water nexus in Gujarat, India," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 40(1), pages 49-64, February.
    7. Lukovics, Miklós & Flipse, Steven M. & Udvari, Beáta & Fisher, Erik, 2017. "Responsible research and innovation in contrasting innovation environments: Socio-Technical Integration Research in Hungary and the Netherlands," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 172-182.
    8. Wang, Nannan & Gong, Zheng & Xu, Zhuhuizi & Liu, Zhankun & Han, Yu, 2021. "A quantitative investigation of the technological innovation in large construction companies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).

    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. Silfverskiöld, Stefan & Andersson, Kent & Lundmark, Martin, 2021. "Does the method for Military Utility Assessment of Future Technologies provide utility?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    2. Musango, Josephine Kaviti & Ouma-Mugabe, John, 2024. "A generic technology assessment framework for sustainable energy transitions in African contexts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    3. Hugo Lucas & Ruth Carbajo & Tomoo Machiba & Evgeny Zhukov & Luisa F. Cabeza, 2021. "Improving Public Attitude towards Renewable Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-16, July.
    4. Ioannidis, Romanos & Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, 2020. "A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    5. Ana Beatriz Hernández-Lara & Juan Pablo Gonzales-Bustos & Amado Alarcón-Alarcón, 2021. "Social Sustainability on Corporate Boards: The Effects of Female Family Members on R&D," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-13, February.
    6. Shahriyar Nasirov & Carlos Silva & Claudio A. Agostini, 2015. "Investors’ Perspectives on Barriers to the Deployment of Renewable Energy Sources in Chile," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-21, April.
    7. Zhang, Li & Wu, Jing & Liu, Hongyu, 2018. "Policies to enhance the drivers of green housing development in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 225-235.
    8. Wang, Chunhua, 2014. "Regulating land development in a natural disaster-prone area: The roles of building codes," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 209-228.
    9. Tedi Skiti, 2020. "Institutional entry barriers and spatial technology diffusion: Evidence from the broadband industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(7), pages 1336-1361, July.
    10. Houda Elmustapha & Thomas Hoppe & Hans Bressers, 2018. "Understanding Stakeholders’ Views and the Influence of the Socio-Cultural Dimension on the Adoption of Solar Energy Technology in Lebanon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-17, January.
    11. Hossein Heirani & Naser Bagheri Moghaddam & Sina Labbafi & Seyedali Sina, 2022. "A Business Model for Developing Distributed Photovoltaic Systems in Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-21, September.
    12. Bashir, Muhammad Farhan & Ma, Beiling & Sharif, Arshian & Ao, Tong & Koca, Kemal, 2023. "Nuclear energy consumption, energy access and energy poverty: Policy implications for the COP27 and environmental sustainability," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    13. Shih-Chieh Huang & Shang-Lien Lo & Yen-Ching Lin, 2013. "To Re-Explore the Causality between Barriers to Renewable Energy Development: A Case Study of Wind Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 6(9), pages 1-24, August.
    14. Eirini Triantafyllidou & Anastasia Zabaniotou, 2022. "From Theory to Praxis: ‘Go Sustainable Living’ Survey for Exploring Individuals Consciousness Level of Decision-Making and Action-Taking in Daily Life Towards a Green Citizenship," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 113-139, March.
    15. Yuan, Xueliang & Zuo, Jian & Ma, Chunyuan, 2011. "Social acceptance of solar energy technologies in China--End users' perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1031-1036, March.
    16. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Güleryüz, Sezin, 2016. "An integrated DEMATEL-ANP approach for renewable energy resources selection in Turkey," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 435-448.
    17. Garrett, Vicki & Koontz, Tomas M., 2008. "Breaking the cycle: Producer and consumer perspectives on the non-adoption of passive solar housing in the US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1551-1566, April.
    18. Sarvenaz Pakravan & Shahin Keynoush & Ehsan Daneshyar, 2022. "Proposing a Pedagogical Framework for Integrating Urban Agriculture as a Tool to Achieve Social Sustainability within the Interior Design Studio," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-32, June.
    19. Sadie M. Witt & Shelby Stults & Emma Rieves & Kevin Emerson & Daniel L. Mendoza, 2019. "Findings from a Pilot Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Bulb Exchange Program at a Neighborhood Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-25, July.
    20. Florin Mariasiu, 2013. "Consumers’ Attitudes Related to Biofuel Use in Transportation," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 3(1), pages 1-9.

    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:44:y:2016:i:c:p:66-77. 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.