”Whose bread I eat, his song I sing”?
Technology assessment and its clients
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.28.1.33Keywords:
technology assessment, policy advice, client’s advocacyAbstract
Weimer and Vining (1999) discern three roles for scientific policy advisers: the objective technician, the issue advocate, and the client’s advocate. This contribution focuses on the latter – a role that is rarely reflected upon in current discussions about technology assessment (TA) practice. Based on empirical data on the practices, constellations, and paradigms prevalent in policy advice activities at the Austrian Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA), we (1) present the portfolio and characteristics of the institute’s clients, (2) relate these to the issues addressed in the institute’s projects and to four project-specific case studies, and (3) present open questions to the practice and community of TA pertaining to its relation to its clients.
References
Bauer, Anja; Kastenhofer, Karen (2019): Policy advice in technology assessment. Shifting roles, principles and boundaries. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change 139, S. 32–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.023
EU – European Union (2019): What is Horizon 2020? Online verfügbar unter https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/what-horizon-2020, zuletzt geprüft am 29. 01. 2019.
Funtowicz, Silvio; Ravetz, Jeremy (1993): Science for the post-normal age. In: Futures 25 (7), S. 739–755. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L
Habermas, Jürgen (1963): Verwissenschaftlichte Politik und öffentliche Meinung. In: Ders. (Hg.): Technik und Wissenschaft als „Ideologie“. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, S. 120–145.
ITA – Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung (2018): Leitbild, Fassung vom 22. 10. 2018. Online verfügbar unter https://www.oeaw.ac.at/ita/ueber-uns/leitbild, zuletzt geprüft am 29. 01. 2019.
Kastenhofer, Karen et al. (2018): Beratungspraxis in der TA. In: TATuP – Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis 27 (1), S. 80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.27.1.80
Kastenhofer, Karen; Torgersen, Helge (2016): Transhumanismus und Neuroenhancement. Technowissenschaftliche Visionen als Herausforderung für die Technikfolgenabschätzung. In: FIfF-Kommunikation 2 (16), S. 52–56.
Klinke, Andreas; Renn, Ortwin (2002): A new approach to risk evaluation and management. Risk-based, precaution-based, and discourse-based strategies. In: Risk Analysis 22 (6), S. 1071–1094. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00274
Nentwich, Michael; Fuchs, Daniela (2018): 30 Jahre Institut für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. In: Geistes-, sozial- und kulturwisssenschaftlicher Anzeiger der ÖAW, Bd. 153, S. 5–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1553/anzeiger153-1s5
Pielke Jr., Roger (2007): The honest broker. Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818110
van Est, Rinie; Nentwich, Michael; Ganzevles, Jurgen; Krom, André (2016): Seeing technology assessment with new eyes. In: Lars Klüver, Rasmus Nielsen und Marie Jørgensen (Hg.): Policy-oriented technology assessment across Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan, S. 18–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-56172-5_3
Weimer, David; Vining, Aidan (1999): Policy analysis. Concepts and practice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Karen Kastenhofer, Leo Capari, Daniela Fuchs, Walter Peissl
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles in TATuP - Journal for Technology Assessment in Theory and Practice are published under the Creative Commons Licence CC BY 4.0.
