IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v26y1999i5p303-312.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participatory technology assessment: A response to technical modernity?

Author

Listed:
  • Leonhard Hennen

Abstract

This paper discusses the societal context of technology assessment and the reasons underlying recent calls for participation. Participatory technology assessment is analysed in the light of current sociological debate about ‘uncertainty’, and its functional role is considered in relation to public controversy and decision-making on science and technology. Three key questions are addressed: what are the reasons given for using participation in technology assessment processes? which features of modern society have prompted the increasing demands for participation in technology policy? and what role can participation be expected to play in modern, technological society? Participatory technology assessment, as a response to technological controversy, should be understood as a means of dealing, in creative and interactive ways, with the issue of (scientific, social, ethical…) uncertainty at the heart of modern society. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:26:y:1999:i:5:p:303-312
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154399781782310
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    RePEc Biblio mentions

    As found on the RePEc Biblio, the curated bibliography for Economics:
    1. > Economic Development Technological Change, and Growth > Technological Change: Choices and Consequences > Technology Assessment

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    6. Gregor Wolbring, 2022. "Auditing the ‘Social’ of Quantum Technologies: A Scoping Review," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-38, March.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    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:oup:scippl:v:26:y:1999:i:5:p:303-312. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.