Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T10:54:24.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Philosophical Issues in Technology Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Stanley R. Carpenter
Stanley R. Carpenter*
Affiliation:
Georgia Institute of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The current sociotechnical enterprise known as technology assessment (TA) is examined. Applying Skolimowski's analysis of epistemic possibility, the two foci of TA activities, impact analysis and policy analysis are shown to involve different logical and methodological forms. Impact analysis is shown to follow the logic of applied science while policy analysis involves the logic of technological design. Methodological implications of this distinction are isolated. Areas requiring conceptual clarification internal to TA practice are identified and limitations of the overall approach are articulated.

Type
Special Section on Value Issues in Science, Technology, and Medicine
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , December 1977 , pp. 574 - 593
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1977

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.)

Footnotes

†

Research for this paper was sponsored in part by NSF (ERS 76–04474). I wish to thank my colleagues F. A. Rossini, A. L. Porter, and R. Larson for helpful criticisms of an earlier draft. Conclusions, however, are not necessarily endorsed by either my team members or NSF.

References

[1] Agassi, J. “Positive Evidence in Science and Technology.” In Science in Flux: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 80. Boston: D. Reidel, 1975. pp. 306–321.10.1007/978-94-010-1810-4_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Agassi, J. “The Confusion Between Science and Technology in the Standard Philosophies of Science.” In Science in Flux: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 80. Boston: D. Reidel, 1975. pp. 282–305.10.1007/978-94-010-1810-4_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Arnstein, S. “A Working Model for Public Participation.” Public Administration Review 35 (1975): 70–73.10.2307/975206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Arnstein, S. and Christakis, A. (eds.). Perspectives on Technology Assessment. Jerusalem: Science and Technology Publishers, 1975.Google Scholar
[5] Bauer, R. A. et. al. Second-Order Consequences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1969.Google Scholar
[6] Berg, et. al. “Methodologies in Perspective.” In [4], pp. 63–72.Google Scholar
[7] Berg, M. “The Politics of Technology Assessment,” Journal of International Society for Technology Assessment 1 (1975): 21–32.Google Scholar
[8] Brockhaus, W. L. and Mickelsen, J. F. “A Worldwide Investigation of Writings and Publications Concerningthe Delphi Methodology,” Journal of the International Society of Technology Assessment 2 (1976): 5–34.Google Scholar
[9] Bunge, M. “Technology as Applied Science.” In [45], pp. 329–347.10.2307/3101932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Bunge, M. “The Philosophical Richness of Technology.” In [28]. First presented at PSA Biennial Conference, Chicago: 30 October 1976.10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1976.2.192379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] Bunge, M. “Toward a Philosophy of Technology.” In [54], pp. 62–76.Google Scholar
[12] Bunge, M. “What is a Quality of Life Indicator?” Social Indicators Research 2 (1975): 65–79.10.1007/BF00300471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13] Carpenter, S. R. “Modes of Knowing and Technological Action,” Philosophy Today 18 (1974): 162–168.10.5840/philtoday197418215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Carpenter, S. R. “On the Difference Between Science and Technology,” Proceedings of International Congress of Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science. London, Ontario: 27 August—2 September, 1975. Pp. V19–21.Google Scholar
[15] Carpenter, S. R. “The Cognitive Dimension of Technological Change.” In [27], pp. 402–434.Google Scholar
[16] Carpenter, S. R. “The Structure of Technological Action.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Boston University, 1971. Ch. 3.Google Scholar
[17] Carpenter, S. R. and Rossini, F. A. “Value Dimensions of Technology Assessment.” In [61], pp. 463–469.Google Scholar
[18] Coates, J. “Coates' Corner.” Technology Assessment 2 (1974): 159–161.Google Scholar
[19] Coates, J. “Technology Assessment: The Benefits, The Costs, The Consequences.” The Futurist 4 (1971): 225–231.Google Scholar
[20] Coates, V. T. “President's Message.” Journal of the International Society for Technology Assessment 2 (1976): 4–6.Google Scholar
[21] Coates, V. T. “Technology Assessment Seeks Role in Business,” Chemical and Engineering News 55 (28 March 1977): 11–13.10.1021/cen-v055n013.p011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22] Daly, H. (ed.). Toward a Steady-State Economy. San Francisco: Freeman, 1972.Google Scholar
[23] Decker, Craig, “A Preliminary Assessment of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment,” Journal of the International Society for Technology Assessment 1 (1975): 6–26.Google Scholar
[24] Dickson, D. The Politics of Alternative Technology. New York: Universe Books, 1974.Google Scholar
[25] Dorfman, R. “An Afterword: Human Values and Environmental Decisions.” In [70], pp. 153–173.Google Scholar
[26] Dror, Y. Design for Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier, 1971.Google Scholar
[27] Durbin, P. (ed.). Research in Philosophy and Technology. Vol. 1. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1977.Google Scholar
[28] Durbin, P. (ed.). Research in Philosophy and Technology Vol. 2. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1978.Google Scholar
[29] Eisenstadt, S. N. “Studies of Modernization and Sociological Theory.” History and Theory 13 (1974): 225–252.10.2307/2504778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[30] Ellul, J. The Technological Society. Trans, by Wilkinson, J. New York: Vintage, 1967.Google Scholar
[31] Enzer, Selwyn. “Cross-Impact Techniques in Technology Assessment,” Futures 4 (1972): 30–51.10.1016/0016-3287(72)90023-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[32] Forrester, Jay W. World Dynamics. Cambridge, Mass.: Wright-Allen, 1971.Google Scholar
[33] Gendron, B. Technology and The Human Condition. New York: St. Martins, 1977.Google Scholar
[34] Georgescu-Roegen, N. The Entropy Law and The Economic Process. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1971.10.4159/harvard.9780674281653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[35] Goldsmith, E. et. al. “A Blueprint for Survival.” The Ecologist 2 (1972): 127–136.Google Scholar
[36] Gordon, T. J. and Becker, H. S. “The Uses of Cross-Impact Approaches in Technology Assessment.” In M. Cetron and B. Bartocha (eds.), The Methodology of Technology Assessment. New York: Gordon & Breech, 1972.Google Scholar
[37] Harman, W. “The Coming Transformation.” The Futurist 9 (1977): 5–11.Google Scholar
[38] Heitowit, E. D. et. al. Science, Technology, and Society: A Guide to the Field. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Program on Science, Technology, and Society, December, 1976.Google Scholar
[39] Hetman, F. Society and The Assessment of Technology. Paris: OECD, 1973.Google Scholar
[40] Jones, M. “Seven Major Steps in Making a Technology Assessment.” in Mitre Corporation, A Technology Assessment Methodology. Washington, DC: Office of Science and Technology, June 1971.Google Scholar
[41] Kapp, W. K. The Social Costs of Private Enterprise. New York: Schocken, 1950.Google Scholar
[42] Kash, D. “Observations on Interdisciplinary Studies and Government Roles.” In Conference Proceedings: Adapting Science to Social Needs. Washington, DC: AAAS Report No. 76-R-8, 1977. Pp. 147–178.Google Scholar
[43] Kelly, P. and Kranzberg, M. Technological Innovation: A Critical Review of Current Knowledge. San Francisco: San Francisco Press, 1977.Google Scholar
[44] Kotarbinski, T. Praxiology, An Introduction to the Science of Efficient Action. Trans. Wojtasiewicz, O. London: Pergamon Press, 1965.Google Scholar
[45] Kranzberg, M. (ed.). “Toward a Philosophy of Technology.” Technology and Culture 7 (1966): 301–390.Google Scholar
[46] Leontief, Wassily, Input Output Economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966.Google Scholar
[47] Lipscomb, M. A. and Porter, A. L. “Management of a Technology Assessment to Achieve Integration.” in [61], pp. 475–482.Google Scholar
[48] MacPherson, C. B. “Democratic Theory: Ontology and Technology.” In Political Theory and Social Change. Spitz, D. (ed.). New York: Atherton Press, 1967. Pp. 203–220.Google Scholar
[49] Mansfield, E. “The Economics of Industrial Innovation: Major Questions, State-of-the-Art, and Needed Research.” In [43] Vol. II, pp. 87–142.Google Scholar
[50] Margolis, J. “Culture and Technology” in [27]. First presented at AAAS Annual Convention, Boston: 21 February 1976.Google Scholar
[51] Meadows, D. et. al. The Limits to Growth. New York: Universe Books, 1972.Google Scholar
[52] Mesarovic, M. and Pestel, E. Mankind at the Turning Point. New York: Dutton, 1974.Google Scholar
[53] Mishan, E. J. Technology and Growth. New York: Praeger, 1969.Google Scholar
[54] Mitcham, C. and Mackey, R. Philosophy and Technology. New York: Free Press, 1972.Google Scholar
[55] Nagel, E. The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1961.10.1119/1.1937571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[56] Petrie, H. D. “Do You See What I See? The Epistemology of Interdisciplinary Inquiry.” Journal of Aesthetic Education 5 (1976): 9–15.Google Scholar
[57] Polanyi, M. The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday, 1966.Google Scholar
[58] Popper, K. Of Clouds and Clocks. St. Louis Mo.: Washington University Press, 1965.Google Scholar
[59] Prest, A. R. and Turvey, R. “Cost/Benefit Analysis: A Survey.” The Economic Journal 75 (1965): 665–735.10.2307/2229670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[60] Rescher, N. “The Environmental Crisis and The Quality of Life.” In W. T. Blackstone (ed.). Philosophy and The Environmental Crisis. Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press, 1974. Pp. 90–104.Google Scholar
[61] Rossini, F. A. et. al. “Epistemology of Interdisciplinary Research: The Case of Technology Assessment.” In Proceedings of Society for General Systems Research, Annual North American Meeting. Denver. 21–25 February 1977. Pp. 451–498.Google Scholar
[62] Rowen, H. S. “Policy Analysis as Heuristic Aid: The Design of Means, Ends and Institutions.” In [70], pp. 137–152.Google Scholar
[63] Schumacher, E. F. Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1973.Google Scholar
[64] Scriven, M. Primary Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.Google Scholar
[65] Simon, H. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1969.Google Scholar
[66] Skolimowski, H. “Problems of Truth in Technology.” Ingenor 8 (1970): 5–7, 41–46.Google Scholar
[67] Skolimowski, H. “The Structure of Thinking in Technology.” In [54], pp. 42–49.Google Scholar
[68] Skolimowski, H. “Technology Assessment in a Sharp Social Focus.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 8 (1976): 421–425.10.1016/0040-1625(76)90032-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[69] Tribe, L. “Policy Science: Analysis or Ideology?” Philosophy and Public Affairs 2 (1972): 66–110.Google Scholar
[70] Tribe, L. H. et. al. When Values Conflict. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1976.Google Scholar
[71] U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Astronautics, “Inquiries, Legislation, Policy Studies Re. Science and Technology, Review and Forecast.” Second Progress Report of Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development, 89th Congress, 2nd Session, 1966.Google Scholar
[72] U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Rules and Administration. “Technology Assessment for Congress.” Subcommittee on Computer Services. 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, 1972.Google Scholar
[73] U.S. Congress. House. Communication from Chairman, House Commission on Information and Facilities. “The Office of Technology Assessment: A Study of Its Organizational Effectiveness.” 94th Congress, 2nd Session, 1976.Google Scholar
[74] U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Astronautics. “Technology Assessment: Statement of E. Q. Daddario, Chairman.” Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development, 90th Congress, 1st Session, 1967.Google Scholar
[75] Vlachos, E. “Transnational Interest in Technology Assessment.” Presented at International Society of Technology Assessment annual conference. Ann Arbor: 26 October 1976.Google Scholar
[76] Wartofsky, M. W. Conceptual Foundations of Scientific Thought. New York: MacMillan, 1968.Google Scholar
[77] White, L. “Technology Assessment from the Stance of a Medieval Historian.” American Historical Review 79 (1974): 1–13.10.2307/1868313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[78] Winner, L. Autonomous Technology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1977.Google Scholar
[79] Winner, L. “On Criticizing Technology.” Public Policy 20 (1972), 35–59.Google Scholar