IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00279363.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Biais cognitifs et choix technologiques : Une analyse des priorités des experts français

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline Hussler

    (BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, RECITS - Recherches et Etudes sur le Changement Industriel, Technologique et Sociétal - UTBM - Université de Technologie de Belfort-Montbeliard)

  • Patrick Rondé

    (GRAICO - Groupe de recherche sur l'apprentissage, l'innovation et la connaissance dans les organisations - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) Mulhouse - Colmar)

Abstract

In an age prickling with socio-technological controversy, expert judgments and their representativeness are under pressure. Our article seeks to analyze the behavior of French experts in order to test the neutrality of their technological choices. To address this question, we have drawn on a technology outlook survey conducted in France, in which 1,200 experts were asked to rate the importance of 1,150 technological options for the future. We performed empirical tests to determine whether the respondents' choices depended on their level of expertise. We found that the designated research priorities matched the experts' own areas of interest. This suggests that the experts' opinions are subject to biases that may be viewed as incompatible with the criterion of objectivity used to justify their decisive role in decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline Hussler & Patrick Rondé, 2006. "Biais cognitifs et choix technologiques : Une analyse des priorités des experts français," Post-Print hal-00279363, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00279363
    DOI: 10.3917/ecop.175.0065
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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:hal:journl:hal-00279363. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.