Implicit values in technology assessment

A plea for reflexive normativity

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.28.1.15

Keywords:

technology assessment, values, epistemic neutrality, reflexive normativity

Abstract

In terms of its objectives, philosophical presuppositions, and methodological procedures, technology assessment (TA) is – like other methods of systematic knowledge production too – characterized by normative selectivities. In contrast to ethical and societal aspects related to its object of investigation, they are not always explicitly addressed. This poses a problem regarding the transparency and neutrality of TA. The concept of “reflexive normativity” proposed here aims at making the value relations of TA transparent and avoiding epistemic-normative selectivities. The resulting plurality can be utilized productively to further develop TA. Therefore, the concept proposed here is a contribution to both theory discussion and quality assurance of TA.

References

Assasi, Nazila; Schwartz, Lisa; Tarride, Jean-Eric; Campbell, Kaitryn; Goeree, Ron (2014): Methodological guidance documents for evaluation of ethical considerations in health technology assessment. A systematic review. In: Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 14 (2), S. 203–220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2014.894464

Bellemare, Christian et al. (2018): Ethics in health technology assessment. A systematic review. In: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 34 (5), S. 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462318000508

Burls, Amanda et al. (2011): Tackling ethical issues in health technology assessment. A proposed framework. In: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 27 (3), S. 230–237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462311000250

Doucet, Andrea; Mauthner, Natasha (2006): Feminist methodologies and epistemology. In: Clifton Bryant und Dennis Peck (Hg.): 21st century sociology. A reference handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, S. 36–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412939645.n62

Enquete-Kommission Technikfolgen-Abschätzung (1986): Enquete-Kommission „Einschätzung und Bewertung von Technikfolgen; Gestaltung von Rahmenbedingungen der technischen Entwicklung“. Zur Institutionalisierung einer Beratungskapazität für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung und -Bewertung beim Deutschen Bundestag, BT Drs. 10/5844.

Fisher, Eric; Rip, Arie (2013): Responsible innovation. Multi-Level dynamics and soft intervention practices. In: Richard Owen, John Bessant und Maggy Heintz (Hg.): Responsible innovation. Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. New York: John Wiley & Sons, S. 165–183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118551424.ch9

Fisher, Eric et al. (2015): Mapping the integrative field. Taking stock of socio-technical collaborations. In: Journal of Responsible Innovation 2 (1), S. 39–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.1001671

Fuller, Steve (2006): The philosophy of science and technology studies. New York: Routledge.

Grunwald, Armin (2003): Technology assessment at the German Bundestag. ‘Expertising’ democracy for ‘democratising’ expertise. In: Science and Public Policy 30 (3), S. 193–198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780515

Grunwald, Armin (2004): Strategic knowledge for sustainable development. The need for reflexivity and learning at the interface between science and society. In: International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 1 (1–2), S. 150–167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJFIP.2004.004619

Grunwald, Armin (2014): Technology assessment for responsible innovation. In: Responsible Innovation 1, pp. 15–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8956-1_2

Guillemin, Marilys; Gillam, Linn (2004): Ethics, reflexivity, and ‘ethically important moments’ in research. In: Qualitative Inquiry 10 (2), S. 261–280. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403262360

Harding, Sandra (1986): The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Heitman, Elisabeth (1998): Ethical issues in technology assessment. Conceptual categories and procedural considerations. In: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 14 (3), S. 544–566. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462300011521

Hennen, Leonhard (2003): Experten und Laien. Bürgerbeteiligung und Technikfolgenabschätzung in Deutschland. In: Bürgerkonferenz. Streitfall Gendiagnostik. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, S. 37–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-09456-2_2

Hofmann, Bjørn (2005): Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. In: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 21 (3), S. 312–318. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462305050415

Hofmann, Bjørn; Bond, Ken; Sandman, Lars (2018): Evaluating facts and facting evaluations. On the fact-value relationship in HTA. In: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 24, S. 957–965. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12920

Jasanoff, Sheila; Markle, Gerald; Peterson, James; Pinch, Trevor (Hg.) (2001): Handbook of science and technology studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jootun, Dev; McGhee, Gerry; Marland, Glenn (2009): Reflexivity. Promoting rigour in qualitative research. In: Nursing Standard 23 (23), S. 42–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7748/ns2009.02.23.23.42.c6800

Koch, Tina; Harrington, Ann (1998): Reconceptualizing rigour. The case for reflexivity. In: Journal of Advanced Nursing 28 (4), S. 882–890. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00725.x

Kollek, Regine (2004): BioMedical Technology Assessment. Modulare Folgenerfassung und perspektivensensitive Bewertung biomedizinischer Innovationen. In: TATuP – Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis 13 (3), S. 85–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.13.3.85

Kollek, Regine (2013): Ethik der Technikfolgenabschätzung in Medizin und Gesundheitswesen. Herausforderungen für Theorie und Praxis. In: Alexander Bogner (Hg.): Ethisierung der Technik. Technisierung der Ethik. Baden-Baden: Nomos, S. 199–214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845245621-197

Lazard, Lisa; McAvoy, Jean (2017): Doing reflexivity in psychological research. What’s the point? What’s the practice?. In: Qualitative Research in Psychology, S. 1–19.

Longino, Helen (1990): Science as social knowledge. Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691209753

Lynch, Michael (2000): Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge. In: Theory, Culture & Society 17 (3), S. 26–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02632760022051202

Marcus, George (1994): What comes (just) after “post”? The case of ethnography. In: Norman Denzin und Yvonna Lincoln (Hg.): Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, S. 563–574.

Mauthner, Natasha; Doucet, Andrea (2003): Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in qualitative data analysis. In: Sociology 37 (3), S. 413–431. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00380385030373002

Palm, Elin; Hansson, Sven (2006): The case for ethical technology assessment (eTA). In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73 (5), S. 543–558. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.06.002

Paschen, Herbert; Petermann, Thomas (1992): Technikfolgen-Abschätzung. Ein strategisches Rahmenkonzept für die Analyse und Bewertung von Techniken. In: Thomas Petermann (Hg.): Technikfolgen-Abschätzung als Technikforschung und Politikberatung. (Veröffentlichungen der Abteilung für Angewandte Systemanalyse (AFAS), Bd. 1). Frankfurt am Main: Campus, S. 19–42.

Schomberg, René von (2011): Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In: Marc Dusseldorp und Richard Beecroft (Hg.): Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren. Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, S. 39–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2439112

Schot, Johan; Rip, Arie (1997): The past and future of constructive technology assessment. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54 (2–3), S. 251–268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1

Schuurbiers, Daan (2011): What happens in the lab. Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. In: Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4), S. 769–788. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9317-8

Skorupinski, Barbara; Ott, Konrad (2002): Technology assessment and ethics. In: Poiesis & Praxis 1 (2), S. 95–122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s102020100010

Stilgoe, Jack; Owen, Richard; Macnaghten, Phil (2013): Developing a framework for responsible innovation. In: Research Policy 42 (9), S. 1568–1580. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008

Strech, Daniel; Tilburt, Jon (2008): Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 61 (6), S. 521–524. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.01.001

Swierstra, Tsjalling; Rip, Arie (2007): Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics. Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. In: NanoEthics 1 (1), S. 3–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0005-8

Torgersen, Helge (2019): Three myths of neutrality in TA. How different forms of TA imply different understandings of neutrality. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change 139, S. 57–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.025

Woolgar, Steve (Hg.) (1988): Knowledge and reflexivity. New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge. London: Sage.

Wynne, Brian (1995): Technology assessment and reflexive social learning. Observations from the risk field. In: Thomas Misa, Arie Rip und Johan Schot (Hg): Managing technology in society. The approach of constructive technology assessment. London: Pinter Publishers, S. 19–36.

Wynne, Brian (2011): Lab work goes social, and vice versa. Strategising public engagement processes. In: Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4), S. 791–800. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9316-9

Published

03.04.2019

How to Cite

1.
Kollek R. Implicit values in technology assessment: A plea for reflexive normativity. TATuP [Internet]. 2019 Apr. 3 [cited 2022 Oct. 1];28(1):15-20. Available from: https://www.tatup.de/index.php/tatup/article/view/192