Cosmopolitan technology assessment? Lessons learned from attempts to address the deficit of technology assessment in Europe

References

• Almeida, Mara. 2012. “Explorative Country Study: Portugal.” In Expanding the TA Landscape. Country Studies, edited by Leonhard Hennen, and Linda Nierling, PACITA Project, Deliverable 4.1, European Commission, 249–283. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Barland, Marianne, Pierre Delvenne, and Benedikt Rosskamp. 2016. “The Future of Ageing—Stakeholder Involvement on the Future of Care.” In Policy-Oriented Technology Assessment Across Europe: Expanding Capacities, edited by Lars Klüver, Rasmus Ø. Nielsen, and Marie-Louise Jørgensen, 105–113. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Bimber, Bruce, and David H. Guston. 1997. “Introduction: The end of OTA and the Future of Technology Assessment.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54 (2–3): 125–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Böhle, Knud, and António Moniz. 2015. “No Countries for old Technology Assessment? Sketching the Efforts and Opportunities to Establish Parliamentary TA in Spain and Portugal.” Technikfolgenabschätzung–Theorie und Praxis 24 (1): 29–44.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101.
   Google Scholar
• Bütschi, Danielle, Simon Joss, and Michel Baeriswyl. 2002. “Switzerland: New Paths for Public Participation in a Direct Democracy.” In Participatory Technology Assessment. European Perspectives, edited by Simon Joss, and Sergio Bellucci, 126–139. London: Centre for the Study of Democracy.
   Google Scholar
• Claisse, Frédéric, and Pierre Delvenne. 2017. “As Above, so Below? Narrative Salience and Side Effects of National Innovation Systems.” Critical Policy Studies 11 (3): 255–271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colliot-Thélène, Catherine. 2004. “Expliquer/Comprendre: Relecture D'une Controverse.” Espace Temps 84 (1): 6–23.
   Google Scholar
• Decker, Michael, and Ladikas, Miltos (eds.). 2004. Bridges Between Science, Society and Policy. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Delvenne, Pierre. 2011. Science, technologie et innovation sur le chemin de la réflexivité. Enjeux et dynamiques du Technology Assessment parlementaire. Academia L’Harmattan: Louvain-La-Neuve.
   Google Scholar
• Delvenne, Pierre. 2017. “Responsible Research and Innovation as a Travesty of Technology Assessment?” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2): 278–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delvenne, Pierre, and Hadrien Macq. 2020. “. “Breaking bad with the Participatory Turn? Accelerating Time and Intensifying Value in Participatory Experiments”.” Science as Culture 29 (2): 245–268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delvenne, Pierre, and Céline Parotte. 2019. “Breaking the Myth of Neutrality: Technology Assessment has Politics, Technology Assessment as Politics.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 139: 64–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delvenne, Pierre, and François Thoreau. 2012. “Beyond the ‘Charmed Circle’ of OECD: New Directions for Studies of National Innovation Systems.” Minerva 50 (2): 205–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delvenne, Pierre, and François Thoreau. 2017. “Dancing Without Listening to the Music: Learning from Some Failures of the ‘National Innovation Systems’ in Latin America.” In Research Handbook on Innovation Governance for Emerging Economies, edited by Stefan Kuhlmann, and Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros, 37–58. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• de Sousa Santos, Boaventura. 2012. “Public Sphere and Epistemologies of the South.” Africa Development 37 (1): 43–67.
   Google Scholar
• Di Maggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48 (2): 147–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doezema, Tess, David Ludwig, Phil Macnaghten, Clare Shelley-Egan, and Ellen-Marie Forsberg. 2019. “Translation, Transduction, and Transformation: Expanding Practices of Responsibility Across Borders.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 6 (3): 1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doganova, Liliana, and Brice Laurent. 2016. “Keeping Things Different: Coexistence Within European Markets for Cleantech and Biofuels.” Journal of Cultural Economy 9 (2): 141–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ely, Alan, Patrick Van Zwanenberg, and Andrew Stirling. 2014. “Broadening out and Opening up Technology Assessment: Approaches to Enhance International Development, Co-Ordination and Democratization.” Research Policy 43 (3): 505–518.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foucault, Michel. 1982. “The Subject and Power.” Critical Inquiry 8 (4): 777–795.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frahm, Nina, Tess Doezema, and Sebastian Pfotenhauer. 2021. “Fixing Technology with Society: The Coproduction of Democratic Deficits and Responsible Innovation at the OECD and the European Commission.” Science, Technology & Human Values, 1–43. Online First.
   Google Scholar
• Gottweis, Herbert. 1998. Governing Molecules: The Discursive Politics of Genetic Engineering in Europe and the United States. Cambridge: MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Haas, Peter M. 1992. “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination.” International Organization 46 (1): 1–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagendijk, Rob, Peter Healey, Maja Horst, and Alan Irwin. 2005. Science, Technology and Governance in Europe: Challenges of Public Engagement. STAGE project, Final Report.
   Google Scholar
• Hebakova, Lenka, Edgaras Leichteris, Katalin Fodor, and Ventseslav Kozarev. 2016. “Adopting TA in Central and Eastern Europe – An Organizational Perspective.” In Policy-Oriented Technology Assessment Across Europe: Expanding Capacities, edited by Lars Klüver, Rasmus Ø. Nielsen, and Marie-Louise Jørgensen, 57–63. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hennen, Leonhard. 1999. “Participatory Technology Assessment. A Response to Technical Modernity?” Science and Public Policy 26 (5): 303–312.
   Google Scholar
• Hennen, Leonhard, and Miltos Ladikas. 2009. ““Embedding Society in European Science and Technology Policy Advice”.” In Embedding Society in Science and Technology Policy – European and Chinese Perspectives, edited by M. Ladikas, 39–63. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Hennen, Leonhard, and Linda Nierling. 2013. Expanding the TA Landscape. PACITA Project, Deliverable 4.1. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Hennen, Leonhard, and Linda Nierling. 2014. “. “A Next Wave of Technology Assessment? Barriers and Opportunities for Establishing TA in Seven European Countries”.” Science and Public Policy 41 (3): 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Hennen, Leonhard, Linda Nierling, and J. Judit Mosoni-Fried. 2016. “Expanding the TA Landscape—Lessons from Seven European Countries.” In Policy-Oriented Technology Assessment Across Europe: Expanding Capacities, edited by Lars Klüver, Rasmus Ø. Nielsen, and Marie-Louise Jørgensen, 37–56. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, Alan, Jane Bjørn Vedel, and Signe Vikkelsø. 2021. “Isomorphic Difference: Familiarity and Distinctiveness in National Research and Innovation Policies.” Research Policy 50 (4): 104220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004. States of Knowledge: The co-Production of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on Nature. Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, Sheila. 2011. “Cosmopolitan Knowledge: Climate Science and Global Civic Epistemology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, edited by John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, and David Schlosberg, 129–143. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, Sheila. 2013. “Epistemic Subsidiarity–Coexistence, Cosmopolitanism, Constitutionalism.” European Journal of Risk Regulation 4 (2): 133–141.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, Sheila. 2014. “Serviceable Truths: Science for Action in Law and Policy.” Texas Law Review 93: 1723–1749.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorgensen, Marie-Louise, and Katrine Juul. 2015. Europe Wide Views on Sustainable Consumption. From European Citizens to Policy-Makers. PACITA Project. Brussels: European Commission. http://citizenconsultation.pacitaproject.eu.
   Google Scholar
• Joss, Simon. 1998. The Role of Participation in Institutionalised Technology Assessment. A Case Study of Consensus Conferences. PhD thesis, London: Imperial College.
   Google Scholar
• Joss, Simon, and Sergio Bellucci. 2002. Participatory Technology Assessment - European Perspectives. London: Centre for the Study of Democracy (CSD), University of Westminster.
   Google Scholar
• Jørgensen, Marie-Louise, Ventseslav Kozarev, and Katrine Juul. 2016. “Europe Wide Views on Sustainable Consumption.” In Policy-Oriented Technology Assessment Across Europe: Expanding Capacities, edited by Lars Klüver, Rasmus Ø. Nielsen, and Marie-Louise Jørgensen, 114–122. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Jurgen Ganzevles and Rinie van Est. 2012. TA Practices in Europe. Deliverable 2.2. PACITA Project, European Commission. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Klüver, Lars, Rasmus Ø. Nielsen, and Marie-Louise Jørgensen. 2016a. Policy-Oriented Technology Assessment Across Europe: Expanding Capacities. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Klüver, Lars, Rasmus Ø. Nielsen, and Marie-Louise Jørgensen. 2016b. “The TA Manifesto.” In Policy-Oriented Technology Assessment Across Europe: Expanding Capacities, edited by Lars Klüver, Rasmus Ø. Nielsen, and Marie-Louise Jørgensen, 13–16. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Lucivero, Federica, Pierre Delvenne, and Michiel Van Oudheusde. 2019. “Making the Invisible Visible.” TATuP 28 (1): 21–26.
   Google Scholar
• Lydahl, Doris, and Niels Christian M. Nickelsen. 2022. Careful Engagements. London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, Clark A. 2005. “New Civic Epistemologies of Quantification: Making Sense of Indicators of Local and Global Sustainability.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 30 (3): 403–432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mironesco, Christine. 1997. Un enjeu démocratique : le Technology Assessment. Genève: Georg.
   Google Scholar
• Pfotenhauer, Sebastian, and Sheila Jasanoff. 2017. “Panacea or Diagnosis? Imaginaries of Innovation and the ‘MIT Model’ in Three Political Cultures.” Social Studies of Science 47 (6): 783–810.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfotenhauer, Sebastian, Joakim Juhl, and Erik Aarden. 2019. “Challenging the “Deficit Model” of Innovation: Framing Policy Issues Under the Innovation Imperative.” Research Policy 48 (4): 895–904.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radjou, Navi, and Jaideep Prabhu. 2015. “Frugal Innovation: How to do Better with Less”. The Economist.
   Google Scholar
• Rip, Arie. 2001. “Technology Assessment.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, vol.23, edited by Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes, 15512–15515. Oxford: Pergamon (Elsevier Science).
   Google Scholar
• Rip, Arie. 2002. “Regional Innovation Systems and the Advent of Strategic Science.” The Journal of Technology Transfer 27 (1): 123–131.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, Douglas. 2010. “Experiments in Interactions. Constructive Technology Assessment of Newly Emerging Nanotechnologies”, PhD diss. University of Twente.
   Google Scholar
• Santos, Rui. 2013. Avaliação Tecnologica Parlamentar. Relatório Final. Commissão de Educação, Ciência e Cultura. Lisboa: Assembleia da República.
   Google Scholar
• Scherz, Constanze, Lenka Hebáková, Leonhard Hennen, Tomáš Michalek, Julia Hahn, and Stefanie B. Seitz. 2016. “Building Community – Or Why We Need an Ongoing Conference Platform for TA.” In Policy-Oriented Technology Assessment Across Europe: Expanding Capacities, edited by Lars Klüver, Rasmus Ø. Nielsen, and Marie-Louise Jørgensen, 139–146. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Seim, Josh. 2021. “Participant Observation, Observant Participation, and Hybrid Ethnography.” Sociological Methods & Research, 1–32. Online First.
   Google Scholar
• Siune, Karen, et al. 2009. Challenging Futures of Science in Society. Emerging Trends and cutting-edge issues. The Masis Report. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research.
   Google Scholar
• van Eijndhoven, Josee. 1997. “Technology Assessment. Product or Process?” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54 (2–3): 269–286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Oudheusden, Michiel, Nathan Charlier, Benedikt Rosskamp, and Pierre Delvenne. 2015. “Broadening, Deepening, and Governing Innovation: Flemish Technology Assessment in Historical and Socio-Political Perspective.” Research Policy 44 (10): 1877–1886.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Oudheusden, Michiel, and Brice Laurent. 2013. “Shifting and Deepening Engagements: Experimental Normativity in Public Participation in Science and Technology.” Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 9 (1): 3–22.
   Google Scholar
• Vig, Norman, and Herbert Paschen. 2000. Parliaments and Technology. New York: State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Von Schomberg, René. 2011. “Prospects for Technology Assessment in a Framework of Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden, edited by Marc Dusseldorp, and Richard Beecroft, 39–61. Wiesbaden: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Voß, Jan-Peter, and Nina Amelung. 2016. “Innovating Public Participation Methods: Technoscientization and Reflexive Engagement.” Social Studies of Science 46 (5): 749–772.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, Robert K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Second Edition). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar