Eclectic, random, intuitive? Technology assessment, RRI, and their use of history

References

• Adam, Barbara. 1990. Time and Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bechmann, Gotthard, Michael Decker, Ulrich Fiedeler, and Bettina J. Krings. 2007. “Technology Assessment in a Complex World.” International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 3 (1): 6–27. doi: 10.1504/IJFIP.2007.011419
   Google Scholar
• Bijker, Wiebe E., Thomas Parke Hughes, and Trevor J. Pinch, eds. 2012. The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Anniversary ed. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Borup, Mads, Nik Brown, Kornelia Konrad, and Harro van Lente. 2006. “The Sociology of Expectations in Science and Technology.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18 (3–4): 285–298. doi: 10.1080/09537320600777002
   Google Scholar
• Brown, Nik, and Mike Michael. 2003. “A Sociology of Expectations: Retrospecting Prospects and Prospecting Retrospects.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 15 (1): 3–18. doi: 10.1080/0953732032000046024
   Google Scholar
• Brown, Nik, Brian Rappert, and Andrew Webster. 2000. Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science. Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Burke, Peter. 2004. What is Cultural History? Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carr, Edward Hallett. 1961. What is History? London: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Chernilo, Daniel. 2015. “Social Change and Progress in the Sociology of Robert Nisbet.” Society 52 (4): 324–334. doi: 10.1007/s12115-015-9908-0
   Google Scholar
• Deuten, J. J., and Arie Rip. 2000. “The Narrative Shaping of a Product Creation Process.” In Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science, edited by Nik Brown, Brian Rappert, and Andrew Webster, 65–86. Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Edgerton, David. 2008. Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History Since 1900. London: Profile Books.
   Google Scholar
• Edgerton, David. 2010. “Innovation, Technology, or History: What is the Historiography of Technology About?” Technology and Culture 51 (3): 680–697. doi: 10.1353/tech.2010.0007
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, Erik, and Roop L. Mahajan. 2006. “Contradictory Intent? US Federal Legislation on Integrating Societal Concerns Into Nanotechnology Research and Development.” Science & Public Policy 33 (1): 5–16. doi: 10.3152/147154306781779181
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, Erik, Michael O'Rourke, Robert Evans, Eric B. Kennedy, Michael E. Gorman, and Thomas P. Seager. 2015. “Mapping the Integrative Field: Taking Stock of Socio-technical Collaborations.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 2 (1): 39–61. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.1001671
   Google Scholar
• Garud, Raghu, and David Ahlstrom. 1997. “Technology Assessment: A Socio-cognitive Perspective.” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 14 (1): 25–48. doi:10.1016/S0923–4748(97)00005–2
   Google Scholar
• Gassler, Helmut, Wolfgang Polt, and Christian Rammer. 2006. “Schwerpunktsetzungen in der Forschungs- und Technologiepolitik – eine Analyse der Paradigmenwechsel seit 1945.” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft (ÖZP) 35 (1): 7–23.
   Google Scholar
• Gloede, Fritz. 1992. “Rationalisierung oder reflexive Verwissenschaftlichung? Zur Debatte um die Funktionen von Technikfolgen-Abschätzung für Technikpolitik.” In Technikfolgen-Abschätzung als Technikforschung und Politikberatung, edited by Thomas Petermann, 299–328. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
   Google Scholar
• Grunwald, Armin. 2011. “Responsible Innovation: Bringing Together Technology Assessment, Applied Ethics, and STS Research.” Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies 7: 9–31.
   Google Scholar
• Grunwald, Armin. 2013. “Modes of Orientation Provided by Futures Studies: Making Sense of Diversity and Divergence.” European Journal of Futures Research 15 (30): 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Guston, David H. 2014. “Understanding ‘Anticipatory Governance’.” Social Studies of Science 44 (2): 218–242. doi: 10.1177/0306312713508669
   Google Scholar
• Guston, David H., and Daniel Sarewitz. 2002. “Real-time Technology Assessment.” Technology in Society 24 (1–2): 93–109. doi: 10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1
   Google Scholar
• Heßler, Martina. 2012. Kulturgeschichte der Technik. Historische Einführungen. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
   Google Scholar
• Kalela, Jorma. 2012. Making History: The Historian and the Uses of the Past. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Koselleck, Reinhart. 2004. Futures Past. On the Semantics of Historical Time. Translated and with an Introduction by Keith Tribe. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kranakis, Eda. 1988. “Technology Assessment and the Study of History.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 13 (3–4): 290–307.
   Google Scholar
• Lundin, Per. 2016. “Making History Matter. The Historian as Expert.” Mobility in History 7: 7–16. doi: 10.3167/mih.2016.070102
   Google Scholar
• Lundvall, Bengt-Åke, and Susana Borrás. 2005. “Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, edited by Jan Fagerberg, David C. Mowery, and Richard R. Nelson, 599–631. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mandler, Peter. 2004. “The Problem with Cultural History.” Cultural and Social History 1: 94–117. doi:10.1191/1478003804cs0002df
   Google Scholar
• Marvin, Carolyn. 1988. When Old Technologies were New: Thinking about Electric Communication in the Late Nineteenth Century. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mom, Gijs. 2004. The Electric Vehicle: Technology and Expectations in the Automobile Age. London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, Nicole, Anna Geltzer, and Stephen Hilgartner. 2008. “Introduction: The Anticipatory State: Making Policy-relevant Knowledge about the Future.” Science and Public Policy 35 (8): 546–550. doi: 10.3152/030234208X370648
   Google Scholar
• Nordmann, Alfred. 2007. “If and Then: A Critique of Speculative NanoEthics.” Nanoethics 1: 31–46. doi: 10.1007/s11569-007-0007-6
   Google Scholar
• Oakeshott, Michael. 1999. “Present, Future and Past.” In On History and Other Essays, edited by Michael Oakeshott, 1–48. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, Richard, Phil Macnaghten, and Jack Stilgoe. 2012. “Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society.” Science and Public Policy 39 (6): 751–760. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs093
   Google Scholar
• Owen, Richard, Jack Stilgoe, Phil Macnaghten, Mike Gorman, Erik Fisher, and Dave Guston. 2013. “A Framework for Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by Richard Owen, John Bessant, and Maggy Heintz, 27–50. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. doi:10.1002/9781118551424.ch2.
   Google Scholar
• Pihlainen, Kalle. 2016. “Futures for the Past (‘This is a Stub’).” Rethinking History 20 (3): 315–318. doi: 10.1080/13642529.2016.1208950
   Google Scholar
• Pollock, Neil, and Robin Williams. 2010. “The Business of Expectations: How Promissory Organizations Shape Technology and Innovation.” Social Studies of Science 40 (4): 525–548. doi: 10.1177/0306312710362275
   Google Scholar
• Radkau, Joachim. 1983. Aufstieg und Krise der deutschen Atomwirtschaft 1945-1975. Verdrängte Alternativen in der Kerntechnik und der Ursprung der nuklearen Kontroverse. Reinbek: Rowohlt.
   Google Scholar
• Rip, Arie. 2006. “Folk Theories of Nanotechnologists.” Science as Culture 15 (4): 349–365. doi: 10.1080/09505430601022676
   Google Scholar
• Rip, Arie, and Haico te Kulve. 2008. “Constructive Technology Assessment and Socio-technical Scenarios.” In The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society: Volume I: Presenting Futures, edited by Erik Fisher, Cynthia Selin and Jameson M. Wetmore, 49–70. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rublack, Ulinka. 2012. “The Status of Historical Knowledge.” In A Concise Companion to History, edited by Ulinka Rublack, 57–78. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rüsen, Jörn. 2013. Historik: Theorie der Geschichtswissenschaft. Köln: Böhlau.
   Google Scholar
• Sarewitz, Daniel, Roger A. Pielke, and Radford Byerly Jr. 2000. Prediction: Science Decision Making and the Future of Nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schevitz, Jeff. 1992. “Einige Aspekte der Geschichte und der Arbeit des United States Office of Technology Assessment.” In Technikfolgen-Abschätzung als Technikforschung und Politikberatung, edited by Thomas Petermann, 225–251. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
   Google Scholar
• Schmittel, Wolfgang. 1994. “Institutionalisierung von TA in international vergleichender Perspektive.” In Interdisziplinäre Technikforschung: Genese, Folgen, Diskurs, edited by Gotthard Bechmann and Thomas Petermann, 321–345. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
   Google Scholar
• Schot, Johan. 2016. “Confronting the Second Deep Transition Through the Historical Imagination.” Technology and Culture 57 (2): 445–456. doi: 10.1353/tech.2016.0044
   Google Scholar
• Schot, Johan, and Arie Rip. 1997. “The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54 (2–3): 251–268. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz Cowan, Ruth. 1983. More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Smits, Ruud, and Jos Leyten. 1991. Technology Assessment: Waakhond of Speurhond? Naar een integraal technologiebeleid. Zeist: Kerckebosch.
   Google Scholar
• Sörlin, Sverker. 2011. “The Contemporaneity of Environmental History: Negotiating Scholarship, Useful History, and the New Human Condition.” Journal of Contemporary History 46: 610–630. doi: 10.1177/0022009411403298
   Google Scholar
• Suny, Ronald Grigor. 2002. “Back and Beyond: Reversing the Cultural Turn?” The American Historical Review 107 (5): 1476–1499. doi: 10.1086/532855
   Google Scholar
• Tosh, John. 2008. Why History Matters. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Van Eijndhoven, Josée C. M. 1997. “Technology Assessment: Product or Process?” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54 (2–3): 269–286. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00210-7
   Google Scholar
• van Lente, Harro, and Arie Rip. 1998. “Expectations in Technological Developments: an Example of Prospective Structures to be Filled in by Agency.” In Getting New Technologies Together: Studies in Making Sociotechnical Order, edited by Cornelis Disco and Barend van der Meulen, 203–231. Berlin: De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• White, Hayden. 2014. The Practical Past. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, Brian. 1975. “The Rhetoric of Consensus Politics: A Critical Review of Technology Assessment.” Research Policy 4 (2): 108–158. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(75)90028-1
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, Brian. 2006. “Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science – Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?” Public Health Genomics 9 (3): 211–220. doi: 10.1159/000092659
   Google Scholar