Broadening, deepening, and governing innovation: Flemish technology assessment in historical and socio-political perspective

Oudheusden, Michiel Van; Charlier, Nathan; Rosskamp, Benedikt; Delvenne, Pierre

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.010

Cited by 18 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Keeping on with the provocative and constructive tone of my interlocutors, I claim the benefits of a certain perversity and, to paraphrase Winner (1980), I argue that TA has politics, and that this is a potentially good thing not to be ashamed or afraid of. Indeed, as we explain elsewhere (see Delvenne et al 2015;Van Oudheusden et al 2015) TA is typically associated with a political preference for more participatory or deliberative modes of decision-making, supporting the ideas of publics' 'empowerment', 'policy enlightenment', 'healthier aging' or 'sustainable development'. These preferences are not neutral.…”

mentioning

confidence: 61%

Responsible research and innovation as a travesty of technology assessment?

Delvenne

2017

Journal of Responsible Innovation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relation between technology assessment (TA) and responsible research and innovation (RRI) is a very topical (and controversial) issue, as TA is clearly enveloped in AQ2 ¶ broader science, technology and innovation (STI) processes, such as the EU-wide shift towards RRI. In this short response to van Lente et al AQ3 ¶.'s essay, I first stress that this contribution has several merits; for example, it points to pervasive challenges for TA communities, such as the issue of including normative concerns when assessing innovations, it opens these challenges to debate, without shying away from engaging TA communities. However, I disagree with the authors' claim that RRI would be 'a next step of TA' or even a 'form of TA'. In my essay, I explain why I believe RRI is different from TA and why, rather than a critique of TA, RRI could instead lead to a travesty of TA, threatening the vitality and the uniqueness of TA institutions in the long-term. Under the spell of RRI, TA risks being reduced to a role of mere provider of ex-ante impact assessments. I conclude that following the money attached to RRI has a price that TA institutions should carefully, critically and reflexively consider before they pay. In the early nineteenth century, the English author Mary Shelley published a novel entitled 'Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus' that tells the story of Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist who creates a grotesque but intelligent monster in a scientific experiment. Two centuries later, both the nature and the space of experiments have changed drastically. While experiments are still generally thought of as actions or operations undertaken to test a scientific hypothesis in settings detached from the rest of society (e.g. in scientific laboratories), I suggest situating responsible research and innovation (RRI) in a more macro-sociological understanding of 'experiment', one that implies a process of societal self-experimentation (Gross and Krohn 2005), and with social scientists and technology assessment (TA) practitioners partaking in the experiment as observing participants. 1 RRI's origins are often attributed to René Von Schomberg, 2 a Dutch philosopher with a background in science and technology studies (STS) and TA. Rather than in a scientific lab, it is from within the European Commission that Von Schomberg imagined the world of RRI (2011aRRI ( , 2011b. Like a modern Victor Frankenstein, the inventor now has to follow his conceptual creature and to face its intended and unintended consequences, ' (Van Oudheusden 2014, 2). It is also a label 'that may intuitively feel right, but which exhibits a lack of clarity in terms of definition, practice and, at a policy level, motivation ' (Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe 2012, 752). In spite of its indistinctness, RRI's 'impressive' 'career through the realms of national and European policy' (Van Lente, Swierstra, and Joly 2017) and in academia deserves due attention, especially when it meets older traditions, philosophies and practices purportedly in line wi...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 61%

Responsible research and innovation as a travesty of technology assessment?

Delvenne

2017

Journal of Responsible Innovation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the difficulties associated with the institutionalization of TA have already received attention in recent STS literature, most studies identify certain prerequisites or necessary conditions to be met in order for TA to be successfully implemented: 'strategic science regimes' (Rip 2002) in the case of Delvenne (2011), 'civic epistemologies' (Jasanoff 2005) for Hennen and Nierling (2014), 'knowledge-based economies' for van Oudheusden et al (2015) or more generally 'barriers and opportunities' (Hennen andNierling 2013, 2014). While being very insightful, such research reflects a very ambitious 'explicatory epistemology' (Colliot-Thélène 2004).…”

Section: Theoretical Underpinnings: Civic Epistemology and Epistemic Subsidiaritymentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Delvenne

Rosskamp

2021

Journal of Responsible Innovation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines ineffective efforts to address the Technology Assessment deficit in Europe and asks how TA approaches can spread across diverse socio-political contexts while considering the specificities of receiving environments. Based on participatory observations and in-depth empirical case studies, we draw on Sheila Jasanoff's work and identify a discursive shift from an institutional deficit to a knowledge deficit of TA, co-produced with an asymmetrical form of cosmopolitan epistemic subsidiarity. Our analysis highlights the epistemic supremacy of existing TA institutions, a situation in which newcomers fully consent to become reliant on foreign imports of TA practices and knowledge. We argue to carefully disentangle the normative dimensions and power inequalities of the standardization of TA approaches, as this can threaten the diversity of perspectives of the knowledge produced and, consequently, the effectiveness and legitimacy of public decision-making. We conclude by identifying research avenues into epistemic subsidiarity for TA practice and scholarship.

show abstract

“… Ilmu pengetahuan bisa dan harus dijadikan alat untuk tumbuh dan berkembangnya suatu negara bangsa (Sharma et al 2008).  Pendidikan adalah kunci untuk menciptakan, menyerap, dan menyebarluaskan pengetahuan (Ahmed and Abdalla Alfaki 2013;Van Oudheusden et al 2015;Alizadeh and Salami 2015).  Langkah membangun gerakan literasi dalam masyarakat mulai dilakukan, seperti gerakan literasi Tanah Ombak (Silaen and Hasfera 2018) dan gerakan literasi masyarakat di kabupaten Bandung (Rohman and Lusiana 2017).…”

Section: Kondisi Faktualunclassified

Pembangunan Masyarakat melalui Penegakan Keadilan Sosial terhadap Akses Ilmu Pengetahuan Menuju Knowledge Society

Putera

Zulhamdani

2020

JKP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social justice in the field of science is the key to achieving a knowledge society. Indonesia as a developing country is also trying to develop science. However, not all Indonesians have access to formal education and other sources of knowledge. The development of science led a nation that had the ability to create and shape advanced civilizations. This paper is based on a literature study and official government data related to education access. Social justice towards science will be achieved by creating a balance in access to knowledge and the availability of sources of knowledge. The decreasing level of illiteracy indicates that the community has received a proper education. There are five aspects to achieving progress in a knowledge-based society namely infrastructure, content, affordability, diversity, and human capacity. Keywords: Community Development, Education Access, Social Justice, Knowledge Society ABSTRAK Kemajuan dan kemakmuran telah dirasakan oleh berbagai negara di beberapa negara Amerika utara, eropa, dan beberapa negara Asia seperti Jepang, Korea Selatan dan China. Kemajuan ini diperoleh karena penguasaan ilmu pengetahuan di negara mereka. Indonesia sebagai negara berkembang juga berusaha untuk mengembangkan ilmu pengetahuan. Namun selama ilmu pengetahuan di sebarkan secara tidak merata, negara ini sulit untuk bangkit dari keterpurukan tersebut. Kemajuan bangsa hanya diperoleh jika masyarakat Indonesia telah mendapatkan keadilan sosial dalam bidang ilmu pengetahuan. Keadilan sosial dalam bidang ilmu pengetahuan adalah kunci untuk mencapai sebuah masyarakat pengetahuan atau knowledge society. Dalam membentuk masyarakat pengetahuan yang berkeadilan sosial setidaknya ada lima aspek yang perlu diperhatikan, yakni infrastruktur fisik, konten pengetahuan, keterjangkauan, keberagaman, dan kapasitas manusia. Kata Kunci: Pembangunan Masyarakat, Akses Pendidikan, Keadilan Sosial, Masyakarat Berpengetahuan

show abstract

Broadening, deepening, and governing innovation: Flemish technology assessment in historical and socio-political perspective

Cited by 18 publications

References 23 publications

Responsible research and innovation as a travesty of technology assessment?

Responsible research and innovation as a travesty of technology assessment?

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

Pembangunan Masyarakat melalui Penegakan Keadilan Sosial terhadap Akses Ilmu Pengetahuan Menuju Knowledge Society

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About