2.6. Integration of constructive technology assessment (CTA) with the perspective of SST

The research approach of the Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA) in Vienna is generally informed by the broad approach within the field of technology studies known as “Social Shaping of Technology (SST)”. It integrates a whole family of approaches in analysing the complex relationship between technology and society with a common basic perspective (Soerensen & Williams, 2002). This perspective assumes that technology is a product of the interplay between and inseparability of technical and social factors. SST goes beyond a simple and determinist understanding of consequences of a given technology and conceives technological change as a social process, acknowledging both the influence of social forces shaping technology as well as the emergent nature of socio-technical change and societal effects. The assumption is that technology, social organisation and impacts are co-produced. For modelling the relation between technology and society, “co-construction” and “co-evolution” are preferred to the notion of “impacts”. Metaphors and concepts like a “seamless web” or “socio-technical ensembles” indicate the hybrid nature of technological developments and their social contexts. This includes some – however limited – space for choice in design and use as well as an emphasis on the situated and systemic character of technologies with implications for policy and interventions: a broader scope for interventions, the need for diverse forms of knowledge and expertise and a broader range of evaluation criteria for technological projects.

The overarching issue is how the interplay of social and technological factors shapes process and outcome of technological change, in particular in the case of eParticipation systems. Within the multidisciplinary field of SST studies there are specific sub-variants with more concrete profiles in empirical research. Among these “Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA)” is the perspective which describes ITA’s approach best (Rip et al., 1995). Additionally, elements from other approaches are integrated, such as from “Cultural Shaping of Technology” (Rammert, 2002) as well as from “Actor-centred Institutionalism” (Schneider & Mayntz, 1995). The latter is especially suitable for international comparisons of the design, adoption and use of technologies in different contexts as it analyses the role of the institutional set-up and key actors and their interplay with technology, e.g. in different countries.

Figure 1: Modelling the interplay of social and technical factors in technology development (adapted from Schneider & Mayntz, 1995, p. 113).

Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) has moved away from traditional conceptions of Technology Assessment as “a systematic attempt to foresee the consequences of introducing a particular technology in all spheres it is likely to interact with” (Braun, 1998, p. 28). It acknowledges that the development of a technology and the production of societal effects occur in an extended, tightly interwoven cycle. Instead of ex-post assessments of “impacts” of a technology on society, CTA suggests iterative assessments along with the design, development, implementation and use of a technology, in interaction with developers and stakeholders. This process type of technology assessment intends to avoid an institutional and temporal separation of promotion and control. Instead, it is to allow for social learning and reflexivity through feeding knowledge from assessments into adaptation and intervention with the goal of achieving more beneficial effects for society. The ultimate purpose is analysing factors shaping technology development, design, implementation, usage and diffusion with an interest in anticipating, assessing and influencing (enhancing beneficial ones, avoiding harmful) likely societal impacts. This makes impacts on eParticipation as well as impacts of eParticipation a core subject of ITA’s research approach.

Within this process view of CTA, anticipating likely effects of the introduction of eParticipation systems on society (including second-order and unintended outcomes) is an overarching issue for ITA. How to identify, anticipate and change impacts is a major challenge. This extends to a variety of impact dimensions which constitute a range of particular issues in the political, cultural, social, institutional, organisational, legal and technological field. [1]?

[1]? A mnemonic device for key impact dimensions suggested in Porter et al. (1980, 62) is the acronym EPISTLE standing for economic, psychological, institutional, social, technological, legal, environmental dimensions).

References

Braun, E. (1998). Technology in Context – Technology Assessment for Managers. London/New York: Routledge.

Porter, A. R., Rossini, F. A., Carpenter, S. R., Roper, A., Larson, R. W., & Tiller, J. S. A (1980). Guidebook for Technology Assessment and Impact Analysis. System Science and Engineering, Vol. 4 . New York/Amsterdam/Oxford: North-Holland: Sage.

Rammert, W. (2002). The Cultural Shaping of Technologies and the Politics of Technodiversity. In K. H. Soerensen, & R. Williams (Eds), Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces, and Tools (pp. 173-194). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Rip, A., Misa, T. J., & Schot, J. (Eds.) (1995). Managing Technology in Society – The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Cassell Publishers Ltd.

Schneider, V., & Mayntz R. (1995). Akteurzentrierter Institutionalismus in der Technikforschung. In J. Halfmann, G. Bechmann, & W. Rammert (Eds.) Technik und Gesellschaft – Jahrbuch 8 (pp. 107-130). Frankfurt/New York.

Soerensen, K. H., & Williams, R. (Eds.) (2002). Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces, and Tools. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Next: Interoperability large-scale Previous: Holistic understanding of eParticipation within eGovernment