When should there be which kind of technology assessment? A plea for a strictly problem-oriented approach from the very outset
Poiesis and Praxis 7 (1-2):117-133 (2010)
|Abstract||Technology assessment (TA) is generally classified as problem-oriented and thus transdisciplinary research. This is due to the fact that the aim of TA is to work out solutions for problems outside science in order to offer advice to its addressees, namely those working in politics and science and members of society in general. In this paper, we propose that the problem-oriented approach also be used as the basis for the decision regarding when a TA should be conducted in a particular situation, and which TA should be used. As a first step to this end, a broad rangeâalmost like a kind of coarse radarâand large number of topics or problem sketches are created, which then serve as a basis for a discursive process of negotiation, during which topics are to be carried over into a detailed problem analysis ( fine radar ). These detailed problem analyses, which are important for transdisciplinary research, represent in themselves small research projects (pre-projects). They provide, in addition, some initial indications for a methodologically promising project design. The methodological approach described here is currently being tested in a procedure in which TA topics are being monitored for the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium fÃ¼r Bildung und Forschung, BMBF).|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jan Schmidt (2011). What is a Problem? Poiesis and Praxis 7 (4):249-274.
EC Barnes (1999). The Quantitative Problem of Old Evidence. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (2):249-264.
Michael Decker (2004). The Role of Ethics in Interdisciplinary Technology Assessment. Poiesis and Praxis 2 (s 2-3):139-156.
Rob Reuzel (2004). Interactive Technology Assessment of Paediatric Cochlear Implantation. Poiesis and Praxis 2 (s 2-3):119-137.
Maarten Franssen (2005). Design Research Programs. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 84 (1):139-153.
Philip Brey (forthcoming). Anticipatory Ethics for Emerging Technologies. Nanoethics (Browse Results).
Jane Hedley (1992). Surviving to Speak New Language: Mary Daly and Adrienne Rich. Hypatia 7 (2):40 - 62.
Michael Decker & Torsten Fleischer (2012). Participation in 'Big Style': First Observations at the German Citizens' Dialogue on Future Technologies. Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):81-99.
Karen Kastenhofer (2010). Do We Need a Specific Kind of Technoscience Assessment? Taking the Convergence of Science and Technology Seriously. Poiesis and Praxis 7 (1-2):37-54.
Wolfgang Bender, Katrin Platzer & Kristina Sinemus (1995). On the Assessment of Genetic Technology: Reaching Ethical Judgments in the Light of Modern Technology. Science and Engineering Ethics 1 (1).
David McFarland (1992). Animals as Cost-Based Robots. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 6 (2):133 – 153.
Reza Zamani (2010). An Object-Oriented View on Problem Representation as a Search-Efficiency Facet: Minds Vs. Machines. Minds and Machines 20 (1):103-117.
Rogeer Hoedemaekers (2001). Commercialization, Patents and Moral Assessment of Biotechnology Products. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 26 (3):273 – 284.
Harvey Whitehouse & Emma Cohen (2012). Seeking a Rapprochement Between Anthropology and the Cognitive Sciences: A Problem-Driven Approach. Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (3):404-412.
Noël Carroll (2002). Aesthetic Experience Revisited. British Journal of Aesthetics 42 (2):145-168.
Added to index2010-09-14
Total downloads3 ( #203,804 of 556,804 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?