Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:38:08.083Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A framework for a sociology of assessing and intervening in technology development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2009

Wim A. Smit
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

New Technology may have unintended and even negative impacts. This article explores some new approaches in policy analysis of socio-technical networks aimed at improving foresight for technological advances.

Type
FOCUS—Science and Technology Assessment
Information
European Review , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , January 1995 , pp. 73 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.van Lente, H. (1993) Promising Technology: the Dynamics of Expectations in Technological Developments. Dissertation, University of Twente. Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
2.ICRC (1994) Landmines Time for Action and Mines: a Perverse Use of Technology. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.Google Scholar
3.Collingridge, D. (1980) The Social Control of Technology. London: Frances Pinter Ltd.Google Scholar
4.Smit, W. A. (1991) Steering the process of military technological innovation. Defense Analysis 7, 401–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. ?. Giddens, (1984) The Constitution of Society—Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
6.Smit, W. A. (1989) Defense technology assessment and the control of emerging technologies. In ter Borg, M. and Smit, W. A. (Eds) Non-Provocative Defence as a Principle of Arms Reduction. Amsterdam: Free University Press, 61–76.Google Scholar
7.Elzen, B., Enserink, B. and Smit, W. A. (1990) Weapon innovation: networks and guiding principles. Science and Public Policy 17, no. 3, 171–193.Google Scholar
8.Enserink, B., Smit, W. A. and Elzen, B. (1992) Directing a cacophony: Weapon innovation and international security. In Smit, W. A., Grin, J. and Voronkov, L. (Eds) Military Technological Innovation and Stability in a Changing World. Politically Assessing and Influencing Weapon Innovation and Military Research and Development. Amsterdam: Free University Press, 95–123.Google Scholar
9.Kenis, P. and Schneider, V. (1991) Policy networks and policy analysis: scrutinizing a new analytical tool-box. In Marin, B. and Mayntz, R., Policy Networks: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations. Frankfurt/Boulder: Campus Verlag/Westview Press.Google Scholar
10.Marin, B., and Mayntz, R. (1991) Policy Networks: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations. Frankfurt/Boulder: Campus Verlag/Westview Press.Google Scholar
11.Marin, B., and Mayntz, R. (1991) Introduction: studying policy networks. In Marin, B. and Mayntz, R.Policy Networks: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations. Frankfurt/Boulder: Campus Verlag/Westview Press.Google Scholar
12.Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
13.Callon, M. (1986) The sociology of an actor–network: the case of the electric vehicle. In Callon, M., Law, J. and Rip, A. (Eds) Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World. New York, London and Toronto: Macmillan, 19–34.Google Scholar
14.MacKenzie, D. (1990) Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
15.Hughes, T. P. (1983) Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
16.van Waarden, F. (1992) Dimensions and types of policy networks. Eur. J. Political Res. 21, 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Powell, W. W. (1990) Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization. Research, in Organizational Behavior 12, 295–336.Google Scholar
18.Various authors (1992) Eur. J. Political Res. 21Google Scholar
19.Jordan, G. and Schubert, K. (1992) A preliminary ordering of policy network labels. Eur. J. Political Res. 21, 7–27Google Scholar
20.Rhodes, R. A. W. and Marsh, D. (1992) New directions in the study of policy networks. Eur. J. Political Res. 21, 181–205.Google Scholar
21.Hanf, K. and O'Toole, L. J. Jr (1992) Revisiting old friends: networks, implementation structures and the management of inter-organizational relations. Eur. J. Political Res. 21, 163–180.Google Scholar
22.Callon, M. (1992) The dynamics of techno-economic networks. In Coombs, Rod, Saviotti, Paolo and Walsh, Vivien (Eds) Technological Change and Company Strategies. London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, 72–102.Google Scholar
23.Wellman, B. (1988). Structural analysis: from method and metaphor to theory and substance. In Wellman, B. and Berkowitz, S. D., Social Structures: a Network Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19–61.Google Scholar
24.Raab, C. D. (1992) Taking networks seriously: education policy in Britain. Eur. J. Political Res. 21, 69–90.Google Scholar
25.Cook, S. K. and Whitmeyer, J. M. (1992) Two approaches to social structure: exchange theory and network analysis. Ann. Rev. Sociology 18, 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Reppy, J. (1992) Steering military R&D. In Smit, Wim A., Grin, John & Voronkob, Lev (Eds) Military Technological Innovation and Stability in a Changing World. Politically Assessing and Influencing Weapon Innovation and Military Research and Development, Amsterdam: VU University Press, 75–83.Google Scholar
27.Kaufmann, F.-X., Majone, G. and Ostrom, V. (Eds) (1986) Guidance, Control, and Evaluation in the Public Sector. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
28.Reese, J. (1986) Planning and organizational intelligence. In Kaufmann, F.-X., Majone, G., and Ostrom, V. (Eds.) Guidance, Control, and Evaluation in the Public Sector. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 557–570.Google Scholar
29.Gibbons, M. (1979) Technology Assessment: information and participation. In Johnston, R. and Gummett, Ph. (Eds.) Directing Technology. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979, 175–191.Google Scholar
30.Sabatier, P. A. (1986) What can we learn from implementation research? In Kaufmann, F.-X., Majone, G., and Ostrom, V. (Eds.) Guidance, Control, and Evaluation in the Public Sector, Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 313–325.Google Scholar
31.van de Graaf, H., and Hoppe, R. (1992) Integrating theoretical perspectives: a view from policy science. In Smit, W. A., Grin, J. and Voronkov, L. (Eds) Military Technical Innovation and Stability in a Changing World. Politically Assessing and Influencing Weapon Innovation and Military Research and Development. Amsterdam: Free University Press, 265–282.Google Scholar
32.Franz, H.-J. (1986) Interorganizational arrangements and coordination at the policy level. In Kaufmann, F.-X., Majone, G., and Ostrom, V. (Eds.) Guidance, Control, and Evaluation in the Public Sector. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 479–494.Google Scholar