Research Policy openingupTA

ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
RESPOL-2920; No. of Pages 14
Research Policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Research Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/respol
Broadening out and opening up technology assessment: Approaches

to enhance international development, co-ordination and
democratisation夽
Adrian Ely a,∗ , Patrick Van Zwanenberg b , Andrew Stirling a,1
a
SPRU-Science and Technology Policy Research, Jubilee Building, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9SL, United Kingdom
b
Centro de Investigaciones para la Transformación (CENIT/UNTREF) Callao 353 3◦ B, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, CP C1022AAD, Argentina
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Technology assessment (TA) has a strong history of helping to identify priorities and improve environ-
Received 13 April 2012 mental sustainability, cost-effectiveness and wider benefits in the technology policies and innovation
Received in revised form 15 March 2013 strategies of nation-states. At international levels, TA has the potential to enhance the roles of sci-
Accepted 10 September 2013
ence, technology and innovation towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals, effectively
Available online xxx
implementing the UN Framework on Climate Change and fostering general global transitions to ‘green
economies’. However, when effectively recommending single ostensibly ‘best’ technologies or strategies,
Keywords:
TA practices can serve unjustifiably to ‘close down’ debate, failing adequately to address technical uncer-
Technology assessment
Science, technology and democracy
tainties and social ambiguities, reducing scope for democratic accountability and co-ordination across
Opening up scales and contexts. This paper investigates ways in which contrasting processes ‘broadening out’ and
International development ‘opening up’ TA can enhance both rigour and democratic accountability in technology policy, as well as
Innovation facilitating social relevance and international cooperation. These methods allow TA to illuminate options,
Diversity uncertainties and ambiguities and so inform wider political debates about how the contending questions,
values and knowledges of different social interests often favour contrasting innovation pathways. In this
way TA can foster both technical robustness and social legitimacy in subsequent policy-making. Drawing
on three empirical case studies (at local, national and international levels), the paper discusses detailed
cases and methods, where recent TA exercises have contributed to this ‘broadening out’ and ‘opening
up’. It ends by exploring wider implications and challenges for national and international technology
assessment processes that focus on global sustainable development challenges.
© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction against this background that widespread international recognition

has emerged of the key role that science, technology and innovation
The World Bank recently estimated that 1.5 billion people were can play in helping foster moves to the kinds of ‘green economy’
living “without sufficient means for human survival” (Chen and discussed at the 2012 Rio + 20 conference (UNEP, 2011; CEC, 2011),
Ravallion, 2008; Parsons, 2008). Whilst extreme poverty appears effectively implementing the UN Framework Convention on Cli-
to be falling (United Nations, 2012a,b), gaps dividing rich and mate Change (UNFCCC, 2010), maintaining progress towards the
poor continue to widen, both between and within many countries Millennium Development Goals (UNDP, 2011) and contributing
(Milanovic, 2010). Global problems of climate change, biodiver- to a new set of Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations,
sity loss and industrial pollution threaten further to accentuate 2012a,b).
the vulnerabilities and inequalities (Rockström et al., 2009). It is Yet, whilst global annual expenditure on research and devel-
opment continues to grow beyond one trillion dollars (UNESCO,
2010), economic pressures and co-ordination problems in current
systems of governance, mean that only a small proportion of this
夽 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative investment is directly focussed on such global challenges, even
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and when investments are directly and explicitly focussed on develop-
reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. ment objectives, their wider long-term efficacy is often in question
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 01273 873026.
(STEPS Centre, 2010). This is because existing efforts in technol-
E-mail addresses: a.v.ely@sussex.ac.uk (A. Ely), pvz@fund-cenit.org.ar
(P. Van Zwanenberg), a.c.stirling@sussex.ac.uk (A. Stirling). ogy development and wider innovation are typically most strongly
1
Tel.: +44 01273 877118. steered by powerful incumbent interests, which often do not match
0048-7333/$ – see front matter © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.09.004
Please cite this article in press as: Ely, A., et al., Broadening out and opening up technology assessment: Approaches to enhance international
development, co-ordination and democratisation. Res. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.09.004
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
2 A. Ely et al. / Research Policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
those of the most vulnerable groups, and frequently fail fully to choice among the alternative policies in the light of the best available
account for social, technical and ecological complexities and uncer- knowledge of their likely consequences” (Brooks, 1976). Alongside
tainties. probabilistic forecasting, a variety of quantitative and qualitative
Technology assessment (TA) offers directly to address these methods have been applied, including brainstorming, literature
challenges. As defined here, TA is a broad set of practices aimed research, document analysis, expert consultation, questionnaires,
at informing, shaping and prioritising technology policies and case studies, cross impact analysis, cost/benefit analysis, trend
innovation strategies, by deliberately appraising in advance their extrapolation, decision trees, Delphi methods, computer simula-
wider social, environmental, and economic implications. TA has tions, and scenario development (Dylander, 1980; Tran and Daim,
elsewhere been grouped with science and technology foresight 2008).
and policy evaluation as different tools for strategic intelligence Since the outset, arguments were made that TA was not, and
(Kuhlmann, 2001). This paper aims to aid understanding of how TA crucially never could be, definitively neutral and objective. Crit-
can address the imperatives discussed above – and explore specific ics pointed out that assessments were necessarily dependent on
ways in which its performance might be enhanced. To do this, we non-technical and often implicit assumptions, especially about the
first describe changing approaches to TA over the past four decades nature of the problems prompting assessment, the questions to
In particular we outline an approach to characterising TA practices be asked, the scope of appraisal, the options under consideration,
– distinguishing between the ‘broadening out’ of various kinds of as well as the appropriate methods to employ and the interpre-
inputs to TA; and the extent to which TA outputs ‘open up’ wider tation of outcomes (Wynne, 1975). These ‘framing’ assumptions
policy debate about alternative innovation pathways. were only rarely explicitly acknowledged in TA as contestable value
These terms will be returned to in more detail later. But for now, judgements that, both shape – and are reinforced by – its out-
‘broadening out inputs’ involves extending the scope of a TA exer- comes. In addition, the slow delivery of assessments, the uneven
cise in a number of dimensions, such as to include in appraisal a treatment of social consequences, and limited insights into the
greater variety than might otherwise be considered of problem- dynamics of socio-technical systems also received criticism (Sclove,
definitions, technological options, implementing policies, benefits 2010). Although the OTA did respond to accusations of lack of social
and impacts, other relevant issues, uncertainties and ambiguities, neutrality by involving particular organised stakeholder groups
possibilities and scenarios, values and understandings, as well as (academia, industry and civil society groups), it did not develop
methods of analysis and deliberation. The more even the atten- capacities to elicit knowledges and perspectives of wider publics.
tion to reasonable alternatives in each of these dimensions, the Critics argued that the values, outlooks and interests of ‘lay citizens’
more ‘broadened out’ the particular exercise (Stirling, 2006, 2008). were often quite distinct from the understandings and judgements
‘Opening up outputs’, on the other hand, involves not so much of organised stakeholders.
the deliberations and analysis that are internal to a given exercise, Technology assessment declined in the United States after
but the manner in which the eventual findings are communicated the OTA was ‘defunded’ by a Republican Congress under the
externally – not only to clients, but also to associated policy mak- first Clinton administration in 1995 (Houghton, 1995). However,
ing debates and wider relevant political discourse. In short, this the concept briefly attracted high level interest again in 2008
involves the ‘outputs’ of TA being expressed not as single definitive when Congress asked the Government Accountability Office to (re-
‘results’, but in a more ‘plural and conditional’ fashion with respect )establish a permanent TA capability. US scholars have recently
of whatever are the most salient axes of sensitivity that emerge in outlined a number of possible future approaches that could avoid
any of the input dimensions. This in turn means highlighting sym- the criticisms of the US OTA (Rodmeyer et al., 2005; Sclove, 2010;
metrically a number of in-principle, equally valid interpretations Guston and Sarewitz, 2002). Yet, despite the US institutional hia-
for appropriate ways forward, each with its associated assump- tus of the 1980s–1990s, active international debate around TA
tions, rationales or contexts (Stirling, 2010). has been moving forward elsewhere around the world, delivering
Next, drawing on evidence from three case studies, we analyse a multitude of variant and hybrid methods combining technical
how particular aspects of ‘broadening out’ and ‘opening up’ have analysis with deliberative processes. Each in several tangible ways
allowed some TA-style initiatives focussing on international devel- involves either ‘broadening out’ or ‘opening up’ technology assess-
opment – either at national or international levels – to overcome ment procedures, as compared with other extant practice. Just a
some of the general shortcomings in existing patterns of innova- few illustrative examples can be mentioned here, to illustrate the
tion noted above. These findings raise significant practical issues general point.
for future TA initiatives, especially as these relate to the harnessing “Constructive TA”, for instance, can extend attention to issues
of science and technology for international development. that arise around power dynamics in the research and innovation
systems which generate technological particular options rather
than others (Rip et al., 1995). Danish-inspired “participatory TA”
2. Changing debates around technology assessment across (pTA) has pioneered involvement of politicians, NGOs, trade unions,
the OECD journalists, scientists, technology developers and general citizens
in appraisal processes, experimenting with dialogue fora, focus
Technology assessment emerged in the 1960s and was first groups, and consensus conferences to represent the various views
institutionalised in the United States at the Office of Technol- (Klüver et al., 2000). For its part, “interactive TA” was originally
ogy Assessment (OTA) in 1972, and subsequently in several other developed in the Netherlands to help broaden out appreciation not
OECD countries in the 1970s and 1980s (Van Zwanenberg et al., only of possible response strategies but also of definitions of the
2009). These institutions arose partly as a consequence of the fierce problem at issue – as well as attending to issues of iterative learn-
political controversies around technologies such as civilian nuclear ing and effective stakeholder comunication within and beyond the
energy. They were seen by proponents as providing an unbiased process (Loeber, 2004).
analysis of the impacts of a technology in order to guide public Beyond these, these exist a host of variants and hybrids and com-
decisions about which technologies should or should not be sup- plements. “Real-time TA” includes elements of all these approaches,
ported by the State. Brooks argued, for example, that “ideally the with particular consideration to issues of timeliness and efficiency
concept of Technology Assessment is that it should forecast, at least (Guston and Sarewitz, 2002). “Open-source TA” explores a num-
on a probabilistic basis, the full spectrum of possible consequences ber of ways in which diverse actors can help design and steer such
of technological advance, leaving to the political process the actual processes (Rejeski, 2005). “Integrative participatory TA” (Hirakawa,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
A. Ely et al. / Research Policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 3
2010) addresses these developments in a particular Japanese con- The purpose of the following discussion is to provide a further
text, paying particular attention to the role of technical expertise. examination of the rationale for ‘broadening out’ and ‘opening up’,
“Third generation TA”, again takes elements from several of these and to link this especially to the challenges of international devel-
and seeks to generalise for wider application (Yoshizawa, 2010). In opment and the contexts seen in developing countries. We then go
their own ways, each of these diverse new approaches all aspire on to present three case studies that, we argue, have helped move
to allow inclusive participation of stakeholders in what has been TA further beyond some of the more narrow instrumental forms,
described as agenda-building TA (Kuhlmann, 2001). All these meth- involving deep and broadly balanced engagements with public sec-
ods, then involve some tangible steps towards ‘broadening out’ and tor, academic and non-government organisations.
‘opening up’ in the senses introduced above.
The implications of these developments are truly global. Con-
3. From technology assessment to the social appraisal of
sensus conferences in the Danish tradition have been taken up
pathways to sustainability
by many other OECD countries, including in South Korea, Japan
and Taiwan, where public participation in science and technol-
While earlier forms of technology assessment focussed on
ogy policy-making is gaining ground (Chen and Wu, 2007). China
individual technologies in relatively static contexts, current appre-
seems also to be taking more of an interest (Hennen and Ladikas,
ciations of physical, social and political dynamics (Scoones et al.,
2009). There is a resurgence of interest in the US (Sclove, 2010).
2007) call for a more systemic view. Greater recognition is required
It is in Europe, however, where development of these contem-
of the implications of complexity, uncertainty and divergent values
porary forms of TA has generally proceeded furthest and become
– and of recent understandings of the social (as well as technical)
most prominent in wider science and technology policy. Interesting
dimensions of innovation (Leach et al., 2007). Seen in this way,
progress is being made in several countries towards the institu-
TA constitutes one specific set of practices in the wider ‘social
tionalisation of particular approaches, notably in various forms
appraisal’ of innovation ‘pathways’ (Stirling et al., 2007). Here,
of national ‘Parliamentary Technology Assessment’ (PTA) (Ladikas
the term ‘social appraisal’, refers to the array of social processes
and Decker, 2004; Ganzevles and Est, 2012). However, divergent
through which knowledges are produced and gathered in order
cultural (Hoppe and Grin, 1999) and institutional contexts do
to inform decision making and associated institutional commit-
lead to a degree of distinction between emphases contrastingly
ments (Stirling, 2008). It is in this way, for instance, that societies
on ‘participatory’ methods (pTA) or relations with ‘Parliamentary’
can better appreciate and explore the plurality of alternative pos-
institutions and procedures (PTA).
sible ‘pathways to sustainability’ and their associated social and
In the case of participatory (p)TA, both locus and focus of
environmental implications (Leach et al., 2010). ‘Broadening out’
appraisal are unambiguously society at large in all the broader and
the inputs and ‘opening up’ the outputs of social appraisal – both
more open senses discussed above (EUROPTA, 2010). The priority is
within and beyond TA – can address challenges presented by com-
often placed quite explicitly on catalysing public debate (ADAPTA,
peting perspectives on innovation-related problems and potential
2000) by illuminating relevant divergent societal views (Pellizzoni,
solutions.
2003), interests and power relations (Ornetzeder and Kastenhofer,
2012). This directly addresses the agendas introduced here around
the ‘broadening out’ of inputs to TA and the ‘opening up’ of 4. ‘Broadening out’ technology assessment
outputs.
In the case of the more recently consolidating European tradi- It has long been recognised (Nelson and Winter, 1982;
tion of Parliamentary (P)TA, on the other hand, the focus is to a Rosenberg, 1982; Dosi and Nelson, 1994) that the open path-
greater extent on servicing more specific “clients” (Ganzevles and dependent dynamics of innovation implicate deeper and more
Est, 2012). Such approaches can show greater affinities with more intractable forms of uncertainty than it is possible to address
narrowly instrumental forms of management-oriented TA (Braun, in the probabilistic approaches of risk assessment advocated in
1998). The entirety of society and political discourse at large can Brooks’ early characterisation of technology assessment quoted
reduce to just one particular “sphere” alongside ‘parliament’, ‘gov- above. An extensive literature has illuminated contrasting states of
ernment’ and ‘science and technology’ (Ganzevles and Est, 2012). ‘uncertainty’ – where probabilities are not known (Knight, 1921;
The priority of PTA, then can lie more in “building connections of trust Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1990); ‘ambiguity’ – where there is dis-
to the parliament and/or making itself useful for MPs” (Ganzevles and agreement over defining, ordering or interpreting the possibilities
Est, 2012). This is approached by regarding various forms of “pol- themselves (Stirling, 2003; Jaeger et al., 2001; Dreyer and Renn,
icy consultation” (Hennen, 2012) in more institutionally “relational 2009) and ‘ignorance’ – where we don’t know what we don’t know
terms” as means to “facilitate mutual discussions” and “the formation (Loasby, 1976; Collingridge, 1983; Wynne, 1992; Stirling, 1998).
of political opinion” (Ganzevles and Est, 2012). Whilst not neces- Each poses more profound challenges for TA than are encompassed
sarily inconsistent, these priorities are quite distinct from agendas in the mere state of ‘risk’ – which assumes both outcomes and
around ‘broadening out’ and ‘opening up’ the practices of partici- probabilities can be definitively measured (Morgan and Henrion,
patory TA. 1990; Stirling, 2010). Yet these crucial lessons are often obscured by
There exist many exceptions and other sources of contextual the expediently reductive language of risk-based TA, as if all forms
diversity at the levels of institutions, organisations and projects of incomplete knowledge remain equally tractable to risk assess-
(Enzing et al., 2012; Hennen, 2012). These underscore that the ment. By more explicitly appreciating the distinctions between
salience of ‘broadening out’ or ‘opening up’ can lie in ostensi- these contrasting aspects of incomplete knowledge (Stirling, 1998),
bly obscure and highly specific features of the circumstances or roles are revealed for much greater diversities of approaches
practice of TA. The devil can truly lie in the detail. Despite acknowl- in TA.
edging the real progress made in all these traditions, then, there is As attention extends to the complex inter-relationships
scope for questioning whether current high profile, newly insti- between technologies and the social and environmental sys-
tutionalising forms of European TA necessarily always display tems in which they are embedded, the challenges of incertitude
all the claimed properties around broadening out and opening become more pronounced and the imperatives more pervasive
up discussed above (Pellizzoni, 2003; Stirling, 2008; Abels, 2006; (Stirling and Scoones, 2009). Instead of “pretence” at defini-
Hendriks and Grin, 2006; Bora, 2009; Hoppe, 2010; Ornetzeder and tive ‘risk’ calculation (de Finetti, 1974; von Hayek, 1978), inputs
Kastenhofer, 2012; Hennen, 2012). to TA can be ‘broadened out’ to enhance the knowledge base
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
informing decisions (Stirling et al., 2007). This includes extend- Stirling, 2006). It is by broadening out TA, then, that we might resist
ing attention to a greater plurality of interdisciplinary and wider these perennial instrumental pressures and be more confident that
societal knowledges (Renn et al., 1995), and considering a wider the results achieve a more substantive reflection of shared public
array of alternative technological and non-technological innova- values and priorities – including those of less affluent, privileged
tions (IPTS, 1999; Gee et al., 2002). Including the knowledges of and powerful groups (NRC, 1996; Stirling, 2008).
diverse stakeholders and local communities – so often ignored
in development-focused TA – can help illuminate, if not reduce,
the otherwise intractable challenges of incertitude (Leach et al., 5. ‘Opening up’ the outputs of technology assessment
2010).
Where wider relevant knowledges are already available within So far, discussion has focused on the ‘inputs’ to technology
business, civil society and other stakeholder networks, then, stake- assessment – the uncertainties, issues, perspectives and options
holder engagement offers not only to increase the robustness of that are included in appraisal. Another dimension concerns the out-
TA, but also to reduce the burdens. This is not only because of puts of TA to policy processes and wider political debates. Rather
avoided costs of foregone ill-advised policies, but because open, than providing a single, ostensibly definitive (objective and com-
inclusive deliberation can often short-circuit the need for more prehensive) characterisation of a technology or technology-related
expensive protracted efforts at ‘optimising’ analysis using meth- problem (as in old models of TA), an ‘opening up’ approach deliv-
ods (like probabilistic analysis) which are by definition incapable ers a more ‘plural and conditional’ set of outputs – each explicitly
of addressing the intractabilities of uncertainty, ambiguity and reflecting not only an alternative reasonable result, but also the
ignorance. Instead, an array of practical TA methods offer more associated assumptions, circumstances or perspectives (Stirling,
rigorously to address different aspects of ‘incertitude’. Under uncer- 2008). So, rather than implying a definitively conclusive analysis
tainty, these include sensitivity analysis, interval analysis and (simply saying “we recommend undertaking option A”), ‘opened
decision heuristics (Saltelli et al., 2008). Participatory deliber- up’ TA instead informs decision makers (and wider political audi-
ation, scenario analysis and mapping approaches help address ences) in a more ‘plural and conditional’ fashion. For instance, it
ambiguity (Stirling et al., 2007). For its part, a state of igno- may conclude that while some options are unattractive under any
rance is in important respects irreducibly indeterminate (Faber contexts or perspectives, a different subset of options emerge as
and Proops, 1994), as well as socially constructed – and even equally attractive under particular contexts and perspectives. So,
sometimes increased by further research (Ravetz, 1986). Yet prac- option B may be preferable under value judgement X, but option
tices do nonetheless exist for TA that can, conditionally, illuminate C under value judgement Y. In this ‘opening up’ mode, then, TA
ways to make technology choices more robust in the face of acknowledges that subjective differences between X and Y are mat-
inevitable surprise (IPTS, 1999; Gee et al., 2002; Stirling, 2012). ters for political attention – and democratic accountability – rather
These include the appraisal of qualities in technological systems than technical analysis.
like reversibility, diversity, resilience, adaptability and flexibil- Plural and conditional advice is not a recipe for ‘anything goes’
ity (Stirling, 2012). All these kinds of appraisals can be obscured (Feyerabend, 1978). Crucially, such ‘opening up’ in TA will still high-
and marginalised by the powerful forces for ‘closing down’ of light those (typically many) options that appear unconditionally
TA using regulatory techniques like risk assessment (Felt et al., unfavourable. Indeed, when options are appraised negatively on this
2007). more open basis, the grounds for setting them aside may be judged
But the challenge of power asymmetries in social appraisal correspondingly more robust (reflecting as they do a plurality of
extend beyond TA methods alone (Wynne, 2002; Jasanoff, 2004; contending conditions, rather than a single privileged perspective).
Stirling, 2012). A deeper problem in old models of TA concern the In this way, procedures for ‘opening up’ the outputs of TA reinforce
broader imaginations and associated ‘framing assumptions’ that the enhanced robustness due to the broadening out of the inputs,
typically underlie institutions as well as analysis. These may shape, as discussed above. It provides a means at the same time to be
for instance, the fundamental aims and visions that are enter- more rigorous about the policy implications of key uncertainties
tained about possible futures as well as the issues and questions and ambiguities – and more accountable and democratic about the
that are held to arise about alternative possible innovation path- particular values that are upheld in decision making (Stirling, 2010).
ways. These included the very understandings of what is meant It is also important to emphasise that orienting TA towards
by ‘justification’, ‘benefit’ or ‘harm’ that underlie the organisa- ‘opening up’, is not a recipe for indecisive paralysis. There is no
tional remits within which TA is undertaken. Crucially, these social reason why decisions may not still be taken and institutional com-
imaginations can also constrict appreciation of the diversities of mitments formed in much the same way as in conventional ‘closing
technological, organisational and wider cultural alternatives that down’ TA. The difference is, that the basis for closure in an opening
are, often invisibly, associated with any particular proposed course up approach, becomes more analytically rigorous (through being
of action. This compounds the tendency for the privileging of tech- more explicit and systematic about the effects of alternative reason-
nological solutions in TA, as illustrated for example in the field able assumptions); and more democratically legitimate (through
of agricultural biotechnology: by market preferences for innova- enhanced transparency and accountability about the implications
tion trajectories that maximise rent on intellectual property or of – and for – divergent values and interests).
supply chains (AEBC, 2005) or by the ‘case-by-case’ structuring Opening up TA can thus help decision-makers and funders by
of typical regulatory processes under which individual favoured attending to policy options, issues, uncertainties and perspectives
products are assessed not comparatively, but in isolation (OECD, that would otherwise be marginalised. Although not determin-
1986). ing a specific decision, ‘plural and conditional’ findings can inform
Here again, those interests which frame the design of TA in political commitments about which kinds of projects to support
wider processes of social appraisal, can (deliberately or inadver- or where to allocate resources. And, although not preventing clear
tently) predetermine the answers (Mayer and Stirling, 2004). This political decisions, ‘opening up’ TA can usefully highlight the ben-
makes conventional TA practice particularly vulnerable to instru- efits of diversity (Stirling, 2008). In this way, innovation policy can
mental (Fiorino, 1989) political pressures for decision justification also gain greater understanding of the ways diversification across
(Collingridge, 1980) and blame management (Hood, 2002) – often a reasonable variety of favoured options may hedge against even
leading TA to be seen more as a tool for legitimation (Wynne, the most intractable forms of incertitude discussed above. Diver-
1975, 2002) than as a means to greater legitimacy (Pellizzoni, 2001; sity in innovation systems also accommodates irreconcilable values
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
and interests (STEPS Centre, 2010), addresses divergent contexts experiments – mechanisms for meaningfully involving user and
(Stirling, 2007), mitigates lock-in (Arthur, 1994) and can foster wider stakeholders in TA activities have yet to materialise in devel-
more fruitful further forms of innovation (Grabher and Stark, 1997; opment settings.
Landau et al., 1996). In all these ways, then, the ‘opening up’ of plural This does not mean that the importance of broadening out the
and conditional outputs in TA can contribute to more robust deci- options, perspectives, knowledges and values included in TA is
sion making in the face of otherwise insoluble policy challenges. not as recognised in southern settings as it is in the global north.
Limited numbers of participatory TA activities associated with
emerging technologies and other potential solutions to develop-
6. Technology assessment in developing country contexts ment challenges have taken place in low income countries. Interest
has increased since the 1990s in participatory, ‘deliberative and
Technology assessment has been much less common in devel- inclusionary processes’ (DIPs) in areas like the potential role of
oping countries than in OECD member states. This is despite genetically modified crops in food or fibre production (Wakeford,
particularly high profile longstanding recognition that the intro- 2001, 2004). For example, a citizens’ jury on genetically modi-
duction of technologies into the developing world without fied organisms (GMOs) in Karnataka, India, delivered a verdict that
adequate or appropriate prior user engagement, assessment or questioned the effectiveness of Bt cotton in responding to the chal-
foresight has led to low uptake, wasted investments and coun- lenges of poor farmers and raised concerns around environmental
terproductive consequences (Châtel, 1979; Chambers et al., 1989; sustainability and put forward various alternatives (ActionAid,
Goonatilake, 1994; Scoones and Thompson, 2009). Where it has 2000). Citizens’ juries on agricultural biotechnology have since
occurred, TA in developing countries tends to have been largely been facilitated in Mali (IIED, 2007), Zimbabwe (Rusike, 2003), and
technical in nature, carried out within centralised institutions or Brazil (Toni and Von Braun, 2001).
by external consultants in order to direct government or donor
projects. Attention to the diverse priorities and understandings of
international and domestic stakeholders, and citizens (rural and 7. Technology assessment at international levels
urban) has rarely been explicit. Relatively recent examples include
the application of cost–benefit analysis to the construction of large Discussions around international TA for development have a
dams (Mehta and Srinivasan, 1999) and the Vision 2020 exercise, long history, dating back to mandate from the UN General Assem-
in which the UK’s Department for International Development and bly, in Resolution 34/218, for the Intergovernmental Committee on
the World Bank supported the government of Andhra Pradesh to Science and Technology to:
develop its favoured agriculture and development strategy (includ-
“initiate arrangements for the early identification and assess-
ing an important technological component associated with modern
ment of new scientific and technological developments which
biotechnologies) (Kuruganti et al., 2008).
may adversely affect the development process as well as those
The imperative to integrate participatory/deliberative with
which may have specific and potential importance for that
expert/analytic approaches, now commonly recognised in the USA
process and for strengthening the scientific and technologi-
(Fiorino, 1998; NRC, 1996; RCEP, 1998) and Europe (Renn, 1999;
cal capacities of the developing countries” (United Nations,
IPTS, 1999; Gee et al., 2002) applies no less in developing coun-
1979).
try contexts than it does in industrialised countries. Indeed, there
is probably an even greater gap between life experiences and pri- However, political and technological realities in the 1970s did
orities of poor users and those of scientific and economic experts not, and could not, allow international participation in such assess-
in developing country contexts than in industrialised nations ments. At more geographically bounded scales (as mentioned
(Chambers, 1993). This disjuncture is further exacerbated if TA above) this proved easier (Enzing et al., 2012). Within the Euro-
is conducted by northern donor organisations or experts without pean Union, the STRATA (Strategic Analysis of Specific Political
the involvement of technology users – or even ‘bridging pro- Issues) and STOA (Science and Technology Options Assessment)
fessionals’, able to relate technical considerations to contexts of programmes have attempted to combine efforts across nation
use (STEPS Centre, 2010). In addition, the heterogeneity of con- states, and work within the OECD has to some extent extended this
texts in some developing countries means that even the same further through its ‘International Futures Programme’ (which has
technology can be configured and experienced in very different focussed on global challenges such as future global shocks) (OECD,
ways. 2009).
The kind of ‘narrowness’ in the social appraisal of innovation Diversifying sources of innovation, largely outside these estab-
described above can be especially problematic in lower income lished centres (Ely and Scoones, 2009) and the ever-growing
countries. Here – despite strenuous and inspiring efforts – limited pervasiveness of new technologies and their impacts heighten the
governance capacities mean that asymmetries of power, privilege need for international co-ordination in democratic technology gov-
and vulnerability often remain more acute. In particular, prob- ernance. International, networked approaches could also provide
lems of destitution compound exclusion of particular communities important inputs to international research networks collaborating
from markets. Chronic barriers to access to education and politi- on development challenges and thus building the innovation sys-
cal representation can aggravate the marginalisation of interests. tem linkages and efficacy of what Wagner (2008) terms the ‘New
These predicaments all strongly amplify the rationale for ‘broad- Invisible College’ of scientists collaborating internationally towards
ening out’ TA in all the ways discussed here. Although not offering shared development aims. These issues again lead us again to iden-
panaceas, many of the methods for ‘broadening out’, mentioned tify a vital need for international technology assessment. Despite
above, can help reinforce wider institutional reforms to help extend this need, however, existing policy structures and limits to the
the range of alternative options and perspectives engaged as inputs accountability of intergovernmental organisations raise continu-
to TA – and so help mitigate the ubiquitously distorting effects of ing questions about the legitimacy and viability of associated TA
privilege and power. These often harness participatory approaches institutions (Van Zwanenberg et al., 2009). The following section
(Chambers, 1994) to attempt to avoid earlier wasted domestic begins to outline examples where these challenges have begun
and external expenditure on technologies for development, by to be addressed by explicit attempts to broaden out and open up
designing more culturally compatible technologies, like partici- technology assessments for development, especially at the inter-
patory plant breeding. However – beyond dispersed and isolated national level.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
8. A case study approach to investigating the opening up of 900 people across 110 countries in a multi-stakeholder process
technology assessments involving business, civil society and policy-makers (if not wider
citizen participation). The intention was that the results would pro-
This paper now focuses in detail on three case studies (respec- vide a global consensus for investing in agricultural science and
tively) in areas of agriculture strategy, emerging technologies for technology, setting priorities for both national and global organi-
water provision and innovation in crop production. These are: sations.
the intergovernmental International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD);
a set of NGO initiatives to explore options for potable water 9.2. Case study 2; exploring the role of new technologies in clean
provision in Zimbabwe, Peru and Nepal; and a researcher-led water provision through stakeholder events in Zimbabwe, Peru
appraisal of agricultural innovation pathways in Kenya. Each of and Nepal
these examples was co-ordinated by non-traditional actors (i.e.,
not national-level technology assessment offices). Each focussed “Nanotechnology” is usefully defined in a key British Royal
on ‘problems’ rather than individual technologies (as prospective Society report as “the design, characterisation, production and
‘solutions’). And each delivered more open ‘plural and conditional’ application of structures, devices and systems by controlling shape
outputs to policy. The three case studies have been selected to and size at nanometre scale” (Royal Society, 2004). This includes
represent a diversity of: scales (both timeframes and geographical many new techniques and applications with potentials to drive per-
reach); cost (ranging between $15,000 and $15 million); partici- vasive changes in society and its interactions with nature. Although
pants (variously highlighting private, public, non-government and put forward by some as a key component of the new ‘green econ-
government sectors); and domains of interest (agriculture and omy’ (Lux Research, 2010), other commentators have pointed to
water/health). The methods employed further illuminate impor- the potential for negative impacts on communities and ecosystems,
tant diversities. Given the paucity of data in this area (linked including in developing countries (Arnall, 2003). The Royal Soci-
to the relatively small number of TA processes that have taken ety report emphasised: “It may also be important to look beyond the
place in developing countries), a targeted case study of this kind perspective of Western industrialised societies, to take account of the
is the only way empirically to gauge the potential – and con- ways in which people in developing societies might respond to develop-
ditions – for TA to best contribute to equitable international ments in nanotechnologies and their impacts” (Royal Society, 2004).
development. In a rare example of nanotechnology-focussed TA-type activities
In each case, we evaluate the extent to which the exercise in ‘developing’ countries, the international NGO Practical Action
in question can be seen to exemplify the kinds of ‘broaden- joined with other stakeholders to undertake the ‘Nanodialogue’ ini-
ing out’ and ‘opening up’ described above, the mechanisms by tiative in Zimbabwe and a range of related activities in Peru and
which this was achieved, and the associated implications. Of Nepal.
course, the short time lapse (and many complexities) make it dif- The Zimbabwe event unfolded over three days in 2006, when
ficult to determine the impacts of these real world TA exercises UK researchers from the think-tank DEMOS and the University
on the actual innovation pathways they examined. An evalua- of Lancaster, gathered in Harare with Practical Action and local
tive focus is therefore better directed at the more immediate stakeholders, scientists and citizens from two communities in
policy consequences. Here, discussion is based on in-depth anal- Zimbabwe, to investigate the general challenge of clean water pro-
ysis of the individual TAs, wider documentary evidence and vision (Grimshaw et al., 2007; Stilgoe, 2007; Mellado, 2010).
interviews with actors involved. This methodological pluralism As part of a larger, UK government-supported programme of
is required to assemble a holistic and robust analysis in each ‘Nanodialogues’, the process was organised around the question
case. But it still encounters several challenges. Documentary evi- “can nanotechnologies help achieve the millennium develop-
dence (especially policy publications) has particular limitations: ment target of halving the number of people without access
even where TA serves to alter policies or technologies, decision- to clean water by 2015?” However, the Zimbabwe dialogue
makers may not officially acknowledge this. And absence of focussed on identifying and understanding various sources of
counterfactuals raises further significant challenges for conclu- problems in water provision, as well as discussing a num-
sions about relative impacts. As a result, an interpretive approach ber of potential technological and non-technological solutions,
based on multiple data sources offers the best methodological with nanotechnologies included as just one option among many.
approach. By directly involving communities in a participatory process –
and addressing not only technological, but also cultural and
political issues in discussion – the Zimbabwe Nanodialogue
9. Case study details broadened out both technical and nontechnical inputs to the
process and also delivered a number of general recommenda-
9.1. Case study 1; the International Assessment of Agricultural tions to government and non-government actors, nationally and
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development internationally.
The stakeholder workshop approach illustrated by the
The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Sci- Zimbabwe Nanodialogue was also used in similar exercises
ence and Technology for Development (IAASTD) was a joint co-ordinated by Practical Action to investigate potable water
initiative of the World Bank, UNDP, FAO, and other institutions. provision in Peru and Nepal. The emphasis at a seminar (November
Running ran between 2003 and 2008, its aim was “to assess the 2007) and workshop (April 2008) in Peru was on focused on
impacts of past, present and future agricultural knowledge, science key problems around mercury pollution from small mines in the
and technology on the reduction of hunger and poverty, improvement Andes. These exercises gathered a wide variety of actors together
of rural livelihoods and human health, and equitable, socially, environ- and led to the establishment of a Spanish language website and
mentally and economically sustainable development” (IAASTD, 2009, network across the Andean region and ongoing links with nano-
p. vi). The resulting five regional reports and one global report, took technology researchers in the UK. Another event in May 2009 in
four years to produce and cost some $15 million. It was global Kathmandu, Nepal, focussed on developing a design brief for an
in scope and networked – in the sense that it involved multiple arsenic sensing device for use among contaminated areas of South
institutions in public, civil, and private sectors. This included some Asia.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
9.3. Case study 3: multicriteria mapping of farming innovation in authors to consult, as they had been encouraged to do. Some
Kenya commentators regarded this as a fundamental design flaw, under-
mining the legitimacy of the effort as a whole. Others saw it as
Climate change and variability pose new challenges for devel- a necessary consequence of convening such an international pro-
opment. In 2008, a UK Research Council-supported project took cess, but one which allowed space for (indirect) representation of
maize-based farming strategies in Kenya as a starting point from farmers by NGOs and other civil society organisations.
which to examine different types of innovation proposed by var- The inclusion such geographically and sectorally diverse actors
ious actors in response to climate change (Brooks et al., 2009). had several important consequences. First, it meant that many
Discussions with farmers, plant breeders, policy-makers, extension often-excluded perspectives were voiced – on occasion finding
workers and executives in commercial seed companies identified their way into the overall report. As one participant noted: “per-
nine distinct ‘innovation pathways’. The idea was to open up the haps for the first time, those advocating sustainable agriculture and
debate about alternative responses to environmental change, both indigenous knowledge had been given a place at the table, and got
within maize agriculture (including high input/low input and pub- (some of) their views acknowledged” (Scoones, 2009). Second, it
lic/private options) and out of maize, to other crop-based livelihood allowed a range of viewpoints, perspectives, arguments, assump-
options. tions and types of evidence to be brought together in one place.
A novel aspect of the project was the use of an investigative This produced frequent tension, especially between traditional
tool called multicriteria mapping (MCM: Stirling and Mayer, 2001). production-oriented analyses and perspectives emphasising envi-
MCM is a hybrid quantitative–qualitative elicitation tool that can ronmental, social and political issues and the multi-functionality
be used in interviews or group settings to appraise an open-ended of agriculture. This was considered by some commentators as
array of different options and associated issues and uncertainties. In unhelpful, resulting in an assessment biased against modern
this particular exercise, a broad cross-section of stakeholders were biotechnologies (Wager, 2008), but for others it was the result
each asked to evaluate nine core ‘innovation pathways’ (options), as of effective inclusion, where controversies were dealt with and
well as any others they wished to add. Crucially, MCM prompts par- compromise sought (IFOAM, 2008). One of the key findings of the
ticipants to characterise their own criteria for evaluating options – IAASTD is that there are diverse and conflicting interpretations of
and elicits detailed technical ‘scores’ under each. the past and current role of agricultural science and technology
A further unusual feature of MCM is that it does not just ask in development, which need to be acknowledged and respected
interviewees to assign a single score for each option under each cri- (IAASTD, 2009).
terion. Instead, it elicits two scores: one optimistic, one pessimistic. The scope of IAASTD extended well beyond agricultural science
In each case, care is taken to document the reasoning. As partici- and technology with a decision by the steering committee that
pants iteratively assess all options under all criteria, the software the assessment should encompass not only scientifically validated
aggregates scores and uncertainties and presents these in easily studies but also other types of relevant knowledge (e.g., knowl-
visualised ways. A specialised analysis tool allows comprehensive edge held by agricultural producers, consumers and end users)
exploration of the ambiguities and uncertainties and implications and that it should also assess the role of institutions, organisa-
of different perspectives. tions, governance, markets and trade. One consequence of this
multi-dimensional scope of IAASTD, was that the options under
consideration became correspondingly more ambitious and wide
10. Evidence from the case studies
ranging. Attention stretched to include issues such as: the sys-
tem of agricultural subsidies in OECD countries; trade rules and
We now provide a brief review of our case studies, focusing on
intellectual property law; and traditional and local knowledge
the extent to which and the ways in which they ‘broadened out’
in community-based innovation. For some, this was too broad:
inputs to technology assessment (in terms of methods, disciplines,
“. . .if you propose everything, then you don’t prioritise anything”
perspectives, issues and options) and ‘opened up’ outputs to wider
observed one commentator (Coghlan, 2008). Others suggested that
policy debate. We also discuss the challenges and implications of
the publication of iconoclastic ideas is itself a triumph. An IAASTD
these shifts for the nature of the TA process and subsequent policy
spokeswoman argued that “even changing perceptions of farming is
decision-making.
quite a shift from the past 50 years, and they should drive the agenda for
the next 50” (Coghlan, 2008). Either way, this ambition and breadth
10.1. How were the inputs to the assessment broadened out? in the IAASTD managed to stimulate debates in diverse circles, from
community groups working on agriculture and development to dis-
10.1.1. Broadening participation and options through a cussions at the G8 (Scoones, 2008). Debates about issues such as
multi-stakeholder process – the IAASTD unequal access to food, water and agricultural opportunity have, as
Right from the outset, the IAASTD was intended to be much a result, been brought further to the foreground of policy debate.
more inclusive and participatory, in both design and process, than The IAASTD has now set a precedent in terms of, for example, inclu-
traditional global expert assessments. A networked, international siveness, and deliberation over scope, which is reflected in the way
multi-stakeholder steering committee established the scope – and future global assessments will now be conducted (e.g., Foresight,
the processes and procedures by which the exercise would be 2011).
conducted and governed – following consultation with over 800
participants from diverse sectors and locations (Scoones, 2009). 10.1.2. Broadening participation and options for consideration in
The assessment was overseen by a multi-stakeholder bureau – the Zimbabwe Nanodialogue
comprising representatives from government, private sector and The Zimbabwe stakeholder workshop attempted deliberately
civil society. The bureau selected 400 scientists (from a range of and directly to ‘broaden out’ the inputs to the debate. Academics
disciplines and institutional settings) to author the report. The from the Zimbabwean Academy of Sciences, the UK and South
drafts were subjected to two independent peer reviews by asses- African universities were joined by policy makers from several Zim-
sors from government, civil society, industry and specialist research babwean Ministries and many other public agencies. The process
institutes. There was no direct representation of farmers or their also included members of two different citizen communities, cru-
organisations (either in early consultation stages or subsequently) cially differentiating perspectives, rather than seeing ‘users’ as a
and limited funds meant it was not always possible for report uniform group. This enabled attention to be paid to a diversity
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
of contexts in which nanotechnologies might be employed – with It is unlikely that a top-down, expert led TA would have resolved
issues such as control and ownership put forward as key issues for such a broadly balanced array of options. The ways participants
consideration in ways that might otherwise have been neglected. defined and prioritised the impacts of different pathways were also
It also illustrated some of the problems with previous technology- rather different than might be expected from an expert-based pro-
based solutions, allowing scientists and policy makers to attend to cess, because they involved more explicit value judgements. As a
the ways in which nanofilters might fit with the practical challenges consequence of this breadth and sensitivity to divergent perspec-
faced by poor communities. The community members’ responses tives, the Kenyan MCM produced a range of interesting, and even
to previous technologies and the difficulties these raised presented counter-intuitive, findings. For example, quite different groups of
telling insights. For instance, issues emerged around availability of stakeholders – maize farmers, the biotechnology industry, and pub-
parts or expertise for maintenance and repair, leading to unwel- lic sector researchers – all held in common a relatively optimistic
come dependencies on NGOs. This inclusive approach also allowed view of alternative dryland crops as a response to climate change,
cross-interrogation of community and scientific responses to as compared with other options such as commercial, public sector
other key challenges, illuminating otherwise-implicit assumptions or locally driven improvement of maize varieties.
and highlighting alternative strategies. For example, community All the above cases show how a range of tools and approaches
members highlighted access issues as the main hindrances to can enable broader stakeholder and/or citizen deliberation over key
social uptake of new water-related technologies, whilst scientists value-laden aspects of TA. Without this, crucial questions might
pointed more to community empowerment and involvement in otherwise be neglected, such as: the nature of the focal problems;
the development process. Organisers concluded that inclusion of the choice of appropriate responses; the prioritisation of alterna-
policy-makers and other innovation system actors at the workshop tive issues and the relevance of different perspectives. In some
led to greater improved understanding and capacity than would cases (e.g., IAASTD) outputs of such deliberations informed more
have been the case for a less participatory TA exercise (Gudza, traditional analytical expert-based assessment. In others (e.g., Nan-
2010). odialogue and MCM) the assessment as a whole was conducted by
The Zimbabwe Nanodialogue was not focused on a technology particular stakeholders and citizen actors.
per se, but around the general challenge of potable water provi-
sion (Gudza, 2010). It devoted a whole day towards exploring the 10.2. Opening up the outputs from technology assessment
broad underlying problems, as seen from diverse perspectives. This
broadening out of the range of options considered meant that the This section discusses how and to what extent each case study
exercise was not limited to particular technologies like nanofil- involved an ‘opening up’ of the outputs of technology assessment
ters, but also involved wider innovations and practices, including – such that a number of viable options were communicated sym-
wells, rope and washer/treadle pumps, chemical treatment, boil- metrically to decision-makers. Also discussed, will be the degree
ing water, eco-san, sand abstraction, water divining. Broadening to which the different TA methods are conducive to concise, mean-
out the inputs to the other Practical Action initiatives in Peru and ingful and efficient communication of ‘opened up’ outputs to policy
Nepal also yielded benefits. The Nepal event involved a greater debates.
diversity of perspectives and raised a number of issues that would
have been overlooked under conventional TA (Grimshaw, 2011a). 10.2.1. The challenge of opening up outputs in the IAASTD
These included many human aspects associated with the con- The IAASTD process struggled to reconcile two commitments.
texts in which the technologies would be used, including data On one hand, was a desire to encourage a plural and inclusive
management challenges, capabilities required by local users, cul- process that genuinely engaged with political and evaluative – as
tural issues with the marking of wells, trust amongst different well as technical – issues and which broadened debates around
groups and availability of maintenance support. Examination of agricultural science and technology. On the other hand, was an
context-specific technical specifications took user perspectives into expectation that uncertainties could be resolved by a rational,
account, including preferences for numeric rather than colour- objective, scientific debate among expert peers, leading to com-
coded displays amongst villagers, required degrees of accuracy and mon understandings and consensus visions for the future (Scoones,
operating temperatures (Grimshaw, 2009). The initiative in Peru 2009). To some extent, this tension was managed through infor-
informed a later international collaboration to design and test a mal debate and argument rather than allowing different political
biosensor for arsenic, again involving expert and lay participants in and value positions to be explicitly acknowledged. The IAASTD did
the development process (Grimshaw, 2011b). This will build fur- seek to identify where there was consensus and where there was
ther inclusion of local users of the technology, in a region where uncertainty, and to discuss minority points of view. Furthermore, it
more than a million people are at risk from arsenic contamination did not make unitary recommendations, only a series of options for
(UNICEF, 2006). action at the global level and each of the regional levels, on the basis
that different stakeholders who might wish to act on those options
have different sets of priorities and responsibilities, and operate in
10.1.3. Broadening the mapping of Kenyan agricultural different socioeconomic and political circumstances.
innovation pathways: the MCM method On particularly contentious issues, such as the potential utility of
Multicriteria mapping (MCM) is designed to explore practical genetically modified (GM) crops, consensus was unobtainable and
policy implications of different stakeholder perspectives. In this recalcitrant differences of opinion led to withdrawal of some pri-
Kenyan MCM, a range of potential agricultural innovation pathways vate sector participants (Nature, 2008). Such antagonistic dynamics
were initially defined through discussions with stakeholder groups, are not necessarily without value. As in wider political mobil-
who were then invited to assess each on the basis of their own cho- isations, such technology controversies can in themselves help
sen criteria. Alongside the focal issue of enhanced innovation in catalyse and shape further knowledge production (Felt et al., 2007)
maize, this illuminated a range of different ways in which different and so be thought of as an informal contribution to TA (Rip, 1986).
groups: focused on contrasting problems; highlighted contending However, the IAASTD did not explore the worldviews and per-
responses; defined distinct kinds and distributions of benefit and spectives that underlay this polarisation. As a consequence, the
impacts; introduced different uncertainties and – whilst sharing opportunity was not fully seized, to produce a balanced and sys-
areas of agreement – arrived at disparate conclusions concerning tematic picture of the particular kinds of reasoning behind the hotly
the merits of alternative innovation pathways. contending positions on GM and its alternatives.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
In Johannesburg in April 2008, the IAASTD held an intergov- using their own definitions of relevant criteria, rating both opti-
ernmental Plenary Meeting to ratify final reports. There was no mistic and pessimistic scores and ordering criteria in their own
obligation on governments or others to act on the outputs of the one sequence of importance.
global and five sub-global reports (Coghlan, 2008). It is thus difficult As an example, Fig. 1 shows the weighted optimistic and pes-
to ascertain any concrete impacts on funding of agricultural inno- simistic scores for all the pathways, according to the contrasting
vation. However, a resulting recognition of the multi-functionality criteria and uncertainties expressed by different income and high
of agriculture has been maintained in subsequent internationally income subsets of Sakai farmers. The horizontal axis is an ascend-
cited UK reports in the same area (e.g., Foresight, 2011) and the ing scale of performance, with each horizontal bar showing the
director of the IAASTD has claimed that some of the assessment’s uncertainty associated with each pathway under each perspec-
processes are even being embraced by one of the sponsors (the tive. Among other things, the figure illustrates that both high and
World Bank) that was previously sceptical to its agenda. low income sub-groups favoured locally improved seed over the
dominant option of new maize seed delivered by the public or com-
10.2.2. Opening up policy discussions in the Zimbabwe mercial sectors. But a number of potentially significant contrasts in
Nanodialogue perspective are also evident (discussed further in Thompson et al.,
Despite being named a ‘Nanodialogue’, the TA focused on diverse 2011).
policy responses to water challenges, looking well beyond nano- As illustrated in the above summaries, there exists a range of
technology. Indeed, the shared finding emerged after the first two techniques than enable the opening up of outputs, ranging from
days that “there is no real water quality issue that cannot be solved quite specific tools like MCM to simply a commitment to represent
with existing technologies” is itself an illustration of a kind of open- diverse views and the extent of consensus and its absence, through
ing up that would be impossible under a more singular focus on an explicit discussion of unresolved uncertainties, conditionalities,
a particular technology. However, the final outputs of the Nan- unaddressed questions, and finally options for subsequent debate,
odialogue were not limited to this consensus. Discussions raised as in the IAASTD and Nanodialogues exercises. Although there may
a large number of further questions, including those targeted at be issues about reliably representing such diversity, and represent-
scientists about the possibility of using nanotechnologies in com- ing it in a form that is useful for policy-makers and other audiences,
bination with other options, as well as the timeframes and specific perhaps the principal challenge is not with conducting the TA exer-
conditions under which these might be favourable. In this way, this cises in this way, but with how they are subsequently viewed by
exercise helped frame and put in context any future expert focus decision-makers and other actors. Thus, the problem with the issue
more traditionally on nanotechnologies and their conditions of of biotechnology in the IAASTD was not the explicit differences of
acceptance – illustrating in the process possible organisational syn- opinion on the role of genetic modification in agricultural devel-
ergies between inclusion and expertise and how participation can opment, but the unwillingness of some stakeholders to recognise
help frame expert deliberation. The inclusion in the report of unre- this as a legitimate and accurate representation of opinion on that
solved questions, ambiguities and uncertainties, alongside more issue.
specific findings and recommendations, also provided an open basis
for future societal discussion. This may not have helped bring about
direct policy change. Investment was in any case precluded by 11. Lessons for broad and open models of technology
the context. But the process highlighted the complexities of, and assessment for international development challenges
alternatives to, the focal set of new technologies.
Based on the evidence presented above, what implications arise
10.2.3. Opening up outputs in the Kenyan multicriteria mapping for new TA institutions – especially those focussing on inter-
MCM does not only allow respondents to identify alternative national development challenges with a global dimension? How
options, choose whatever criteria are wish, freely weigh their can broadened-out and opened up approaches remain useful and
importance and express a range of uncertainties – it also directly enlightening for policy, and what are the challenges involved?
conveys the implications of this broader scope in the published This section addresses these questions and ends by discussing
TA results. MCM therefore emphasises the salient dimensions of their implications for better-co-ordinated and more democratically
diversity across different perspectives, rather than artificially com- legitimate international technology assessments.
bining these into a single picture, or ‘best’ option. In principle, then,
MCM should help decision-makers better appreciate the range of
available choices, we well as different actors’ preferences and their 11.1. Implications and challenges of broadening out
associated reasons. As with any specialist method, the utility of this
tool relies on training and capacity. However, these upfront invest- The tendency towards ‘broadening out’ has been seen in both
ments are quire transferable and – through features like codified pTA and – to a more variable extent – PTA in the European Union,
procedures and visual representations – themselves help convey has not been studied in developing countries or more broadly. Our
the implications of opening up. cases illustrate a number of advantages of this wider deliberation
In the Kenyan MCM, nine distinct innovation pathways were over value-laden aspects of TA. First and foremost, problem defini-
identified that farmers in semi-arid regions of Kenya might pur- tions and potential options that are important to user communities
sue in response to climate change. These ranged from reliance on were identified that might otherwise have been overlooked in a
maize as the key crop to diversification out of maize; and from more traditional TA exercise. Similarly, the IIASTD finding that
reliance on internal inputs to external inputs. The pathways were there are diverse and conflicting interpretations of the role of agri-
assessed in group interviews, gathering separately men and women cultural science and technology in development that need to be
and higher and lower income farmers, as well as a range of different respected is also an important, perhaps underappreciated step
kinds of stakeholders. 147 criteria were defined by informants to towards a more mature, democratic debate about this important
evaluate the pathways. These ranged from economic issues such as topic. More instrumental advantages included the identification
resource costs, market access and availability, through stress tol- of potentially overlooked innovation pathways in the Kenyan
erance, water use and pest and disease resistance, to wider social, maize MCM exercise on which there was nevertheless consider-
political and cultural issues such as food security and the available consensus across stakeholder groups as to their relative merits;
ability of knowledge and skills. Respondents scored each pathway and, in the Nanodialogue exercises, the identification of practical
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
Fig. 1. Performance rankings by low-income and high-income Sakai farmers of the nine pathways against economic and market criteria (Thompson et al., 2011).
problems, such as user capabilities and dependence on outsiders thus the legitimacy of the process). This was especially so where
for spare parts and expertise. broader kinds of knowledge and perspectives were brought to bear
Nevertheless, technology assessment continues to encounter a on expert assessments, or where such assessments responded to
number of challenges as it attempts to ‘broaden out’ the perspec- a more complex set of questions and issues as a result of prior
tives sought and the options addressed. Firstly, challenges exist processes of deliberation on issues of scope. Again, in the IAASTD,
for broadening out in the design of TA activities – selecting the at least some participants considered the end result overly biased
stakeholders and representatives to be included in the initial fram- against biotechnology, given the plurality of expert and stakeholder
ing of the process. The IAASTD and other trans-national efforts perspectives on the purpose of agriculture (prompting some to exit
(not directly related to technology) such as the Worldwide Views the process in protest). Such tensions are probably unavoidable
on Global Warming initiative illustrate how participation of not (although they may be mitigated by a commitment to opening up
only stakeholders but also civil society and members of the pub- the outputs of TA) but the challenge is to diminish their extent
lic has recently been extended to a truly global level, however and impact without compromising on ambitions to operate in an
these successes must be acknowledged to have required signifi- inclusive, participatory manner.
cant financial resources and capacity for international engagement The case studies also illustrate the practical constraints to broad-
and networking across the relevant TA institutions. The case stud- ening out processes of technology assessment itself. IAASTD may
ies also provide similar lessons at the national level. As illustrated have involved a more diverse set of participants than previous
by Van Zwanenberg and Arza (2013), technologies can be subject efforts, but extending this ‘broadening out’ in an attempt to do
to different configurations (and contribute to different pathways justice to the diversity of agro-ecological contexts at play would
of change), even in different contexts at the national scale. Some be impractical and unaffordable (even if employing modern infor-
of these constituencies are especially marginalised, or may even mation and communication technologies as proposed by Sclove
simply be absent in domestic democratic fora. At the national level (2010), Wilson and Casey (2008), and Talyarkhan et al. (2004)).
and below, the Nanodialogues and MCM cases recognised these At the same time, coordination of progressively broader processes
challenges by including representatives of urban and rural commu- threatens a bureaucracy that might undermine this diversity with
nities, and farmers of different income levels, respectively. These stifling logistical demands. Extending internationally the moves
processes showed that including users and lay inputs was perhaps towards more inclusive processes that have been seen in Europe
most instructive at the point of problem-framing. After this, techni- will thus require new institutional innovations. This is especially
cal expertise was drawn on as required within the context of these so if the inclusion of plural inputs and options is to take place in a
broadened considerations and led to further research and develop- systematic way that allows cumulative knowledge generation and
ment (with continued user input) and other interventions. The fact policy-useful outputs, without over-bureaucratisation.
that these were dependent on external funding rather than being
driven by the governments of the countries in which the initial TA 11.2. Implications and challenges of opening up TA for
activities had taken place is a weakness but also indicative of the international development
complex politics at play in allocating scarce domestic resources to
these kinds of initiatives. Experience and appropriate capabilities The case studies also indicate the benefits, as well as challenges,
are sometimes also lacking. of opening up the outputs of technology assessment at both the
However, challenges extend beyond identifying the breadth of international level and at more local scales.
actors to engage at the outset of the TA process, to ensuring that The IAASTD’s plural outputs recognised the multifunctionality of
the broad range of participants recognised the utility and validity agriculture and the different values associated with potential out-
of the exercise. As noted above, at least some ended up viewing comes across the globe. It catalysed a shift in debates – most notably
the IAASTD as too broad in scope to be useful. Another challenge providing a key resource for civil society but increasingly being
was to ensure that participants continued to recognise the valid- recognised by government and donor organisations. Rather than
ity of the exercise (necessary for their continued participation and providing a blueprint for international efforts, it acknowledged
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
the uncertainties and ambiguities at play and laid bare the con- 12. Conclusion: broadening out and opening up national
troversies that previous multilateral reports often failed to engage and international TA for sustainable development
with. However, for this, it received significant criticism. The pres- challenges
sure to close down on specific technological solutions (for example
by including a chapter devoted to a “Focus on Transgenics”) was Across the world, TA is at a crossroads. The interconnectedness
evidenced by exit by participants and critique from funders (Nature of different nations and innovation systems, the shared nature of
Biotechnology, 2008). In resisting this pressure, the IAASTD avoided global problems and the pace of innovation demands diverse and
being instrumentalised in the service of one particular technology coherent forms of communication and action. Urgent high profile
and instead set the scene for a more open social appraisal of poten- calls are made for global momentum towards more sustainable
tial innovation pathways (including the social conditions under innovation pathways – that are more robust in relation to societal
which they might flourish). needs and values and legitimate and accountable in their orienta-
As well as extending participation to include technology users, tion and implications. It has been argued above that TA practises
the second and third case studies are also compatible with meth- of various kinds have crucial roles to play in fostering more demo-
ods of ‘opening up’ that seek to deliver more ‘plural and conditional’ cratic appraisal of innovation to serve these goals. In this context,
outputs – relating conclusions to assumptions (and especially ques- a number of the lessons emerging from the present analysis may
tioning expert assumptions regarding the suitability of certain hold value for design and implementation of more broadened out
options). One challenge is presenting this kind of output in an and opened up TA.
easily accessible and clear format. The MCM exercise in particular There is a need to move beyond a series of unconnected, iso-
enables communication of these outputs in an efficient way. Whilst lated TA experiments, towards more coherently co-ordinated (but
the accessibility of these outputs to policy makers requires further still diverse) internationally networked approaches as illustrated
investigation, this tool does present a scalable approach to eliciting (notwithstanding its limitations) by the IAASTD. In allowing par-
and comparing perspectives in international, networked forms of ticipatory TA to be scaled up in wider areas of the world, the focus
TA. should not just be on specific TA exercises in particular settings, but
Another challenge (potentially levelled at all three cases) might also on broader cross-national programmes – enabling cumulative
have been said to have been the absence of a clear policy solution. distributed learning about contending innovation imperatives and
Whilst this might have been seen as a weakness of these particu- possibilities. TA at international levels should focus on maintaining
lar cases, they in fact recognised the opportunities, as well as the and enriching the diversity of social and technological approaches
difficulties and constraints associated with each and every option to addressing particular challenges – as seen from plural perspec-
appraised, providing a full and robust input to subsequent policy- tives. A particular role for globally networked TA, is to enhance
making, which can itself be seen as a strength. ‘Closing down’ to visibility and scrutiny of increasingly intensive pressures for inter-
a circumscribed set of options is not the role of TA. Instead, such national harmonisation and standardisation.
commitments are the domain of politically accountable decision- There are obvious areas where resources and capabilities for
makers, and if TA is to contribute to the democratisation of broader and more open forms of TA are currently especially lack-
technology governance, rather than succumb to instrumentalisa- ing. For instance, there is an urgent need for network support
tion by powerful groups, its role should be to resist processes of and methodological capacity-building for TA in many developing
‘closing down’. countries. The case studies in this paper refer to some extent to
Thus, rather than necessarily delivering definitive policy advice, external groups entering developing countries and co-ordinating
broad and open approaches to TA also enable the inclusion of technology assessment activities. If developing country citizens
actors directly engaged in knowledge production or develop- and stakeholders are to speak for themselves, they need to be
ment of new technologies and practices, offering a means to empowered not only to conduct, but also co-ordinate rigorous and
‘wire up’ an innovation system, as Martin and Johnston argue systematic assessments, drawing on and adapting the kinds of tools
with respect to technology foresight (1999). This strengthens con- discussed in this paper to suit local contexts and imperatives.
nections between actors and institutions involved in innovation Resources, capacity and governance arrangements may often
processes (e.g., private firms, public sector research centres, users, also be lacking or inappropriate for effective debate and decision
funders, decision-makers) allowing knowledges to flow more freely making in response to Open TA. Acknowledgement of these real-
between diverse actors, and learning to pervades more readily ities forms an integral part of the quality of openness, not least
across social barriers. to avoid disillusionment – and disrespect of participants. Nev-
Networked approaches (for example those convened by Prac- ertheless, the ‘broadening out’ and ‘opening up’ of TA described
tical Action) delivered diverse but inter-articulating outputs (both here may generate tacit learning within wider innovation systems,
in terms of needs and resources) in different parts of the world. even if particular outputs do not become the explicit basis for con-
There are significant challenges in linking up these relatively iso- crete ‘decisions’. In addition, it can catalyse a more transparent and
lated initiatives across institutions to provide plural, but at the same democratic debate around pathways to sustainability and develop-
time coherent and cumulative bodies of knowledge. In this case ment.
co-ordination is required to ensure that various technology assess- Arguably the most crucial systemic requirements for more broad
ment processes at once ‘speak to each other’ but are flexible to the and open TA are the same qualities towards which it arguably con-
diversity of contexts in which they are positioned. Whilst challeng- tributes: a strengthening of responsive relations in the governance
ing, this could enable opportunities to link strategic intelligence of innovation – between business, academia, government and civil
from a wider range of previously isolated locations or contexts. society. Under these conditions, the characteristics of TA processes
In addition, this form of ‘openness’ would raise the potential for analysed and advocated here, offer ways to help enhance both tech-
TA to document diversity in worldwide innovation pathways in nical robustness, societal relevance and democratic accountability
given sectors – in ways that recognise the benefits and trade-offs in global innovation systems. Whilst they may present institutional
associated with standardisation and diversity (Stirling, 2007). At and political challenges that are not experienced in narrower (more
the same time, however, as discussed above, institutional innova- technocratic and instrumental) forms of TA, this is a necessary con-
tions and more responsive and plural governance are necessary for sequence of doing justice to the magnitude of the current global
these kinds of approaches to take hold at national or international imperatives and potentialities for innovation with which this paper
levels. began.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
In conclusion ‘broadening out’ and ‘opening up’ technology Dylander, B., 1980. Technology assessment: as science and as tools for policy. Acta
assessment enhances appreciations of the inherently social and Sociologica 23 (4), 217–236.
Ely, A., Scoones, I., 2009. The Global Redistribution of Innovation: Lessons from China
political implications, uncertainties and possibilities of innovation. and India, STEPS Working Paper 22. STEPS Centre, Brighton.
The cases here illustrate that these characteristics – already recog- Enzing, C., Deuten, J., Rijnders-Nagle, M., van Til, J., 2012. Technology Across Borders
nised to varying extents in European debates – have a vital role – Exploring Perspectives for Pan-European Parliamentary Technology Assess-
ment. European Parliament, STOA, Brussels.
to play in international development processes at different levels. EUROpTA, 2010. European Participatory Technology Assessment – Participatory
Internationally networked and co-ordinated TA with these char- Methods in Technology Assessment and Technology Decision-making. Danish
acteristics can enable the vital energies and outputs of worldwide Board of Technology, Copenhagen.
Faber, M., Proops, J., 1994. Evolution, Time, Production and the Environment.
innovation systems to become more socially equitable, environ-
Springer, Berlin.
mentally sustainable and democratically legitimate. Felt, U., Wynne, B., Callon, M., Goncalves, M., Jasanoff, S., Jepsen, M., Joly, P.-B.,
Konopasek, Z., May, S., Neubauer, C., Rip, A., Siune, K., Stirling, A., Tallachini, M.,
2007. Science and Governance: Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously,
Acknowledgements Report to of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to DG Research.
Feyerabend, P., 1978. Science in a Free Society. Verso, London.
Fiorino, D., 1989. Environmental risk and democratic process: a critical review.
The authors would like to thank the UK Economic and Social Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 14, 501–547.
Research Council for its support of the STEPS Centre, of which all Fiorino, D.J., 1998. Technical and democratic values in risk assessment. Risk Analysis
three are members. The authors are also grateful to the Rocke- 9 (3), 293–299.
Foresight, 2011. The Future of Food and Farming, Final Project Report. The Govern-
feller Foundation for providing financial support for the project ment Office for Science, London.
‘New Models of Technology Assessment for Development’ that con- Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J., 1990. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. Kluwer,
tributed to the production of this article. We are indebted to Ian Amsterdam.
Ganzevles, J., Est, R. van (Eds.), 2012. TA Practices in Europe. PACITA Project.
Scoones, Claudia Jeuch and Evan Michelson for comments on early Gee, G., Harremoës, P., MacGarvin, M., Stirling, A., Keys, J., Wynne, B., Vaz, S., 2002.
drafts of the report associated with that project. Introduction. In: Harremoës, P., Gee, D., MacGarvin, M., Stirling, A., Keys, J.,
Wynne, B., Vaz, S. (Eds.), The Precautionary Principle in the Twentieth Century:
Late Lessons from Early Warnings. Earthscan, London.
References Goonatilake, S., 1994. Technology assessment: some questions from a devel-
oping country perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 45,
Abels, G., 2006. Forms and functions of participatory technology assessment – or: 63–77.
why should we be more sceptical about public participation? In: Paper Presented Grabher, G., Stark, D., 1997. Organizing diversity: evolutionary theory, network anal-
at the ‘Participatory Approaches in Science & Technology (PATH)’ Conference ysis and postsocialism. Regional Studies 31 (5), 533–544.
4th–7th June, Edinburgh, Scotland. Grimshaw, D., Stilgoe, J., Gudza, L., 2007. The Role of New Technologies in
ActionAid, 2000. ActionAid Citizens’ Jury Initiative: Indian Farmers Judge GM Crops. Potable Water Provision: A Stakeholder Workshop Approach. Practical Action,
ActionAid, London. Rugby.
ADAPTA, 2001. Assessing Public Debate and Participation in Technology Assessment Grimshaw, D., 2009. Arsenic Sensor Technology Workshop , Kathmandu, Tuesday
in Europe Final Report. INRA, Grenoble. 26th May. Practical Action, Rugby.
AEBC, 2005. What Shapes the Research Agenda in Agricultural Biotechnology? Agri- Grimshaw, D., 2011a. Telephone interview with Adrian Ely, 18th March.
culture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, London. Grimshaw, D., 2011b. Email communication to Adrian Ely, 15th September.
Arnall, A.H., 2003. Future Technologies, Today’s Choices: Nanotechnology, Artifi- Gudza, L., 2010. Interview with Adrian Ely, Practical Action Office Harare, 29th
cial Intelligence and Robotics – A Technical, Political and Institutional Map of October.
Emerging Technologies. Greenpeace Environmental Trust, London. Guston, D., Sarewitz, D., 2002. Real-time Technology Assessment. Technology in
Arthur, W., 1994. Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy. Univer- Society 24, 93–109.
sity of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Hendriks, C.M., Grin, J. 2006. Grounding reflexive governance in practice and
Bora, A., 2009. Technoscientific normativity and the iron cage of law. context: some democratic considerations. In Governance for Sustainable Devel-
Science, Technology & Human Values 35 (1), 3–28, http://dx.doi.org/ opment Workshop 5–7th February 2006, Berlin.
10.1177/0162243908329566. Hennen, L., 2012. Why do we still need participatory technology assessment? Poiesis
Braun, E., 1998. Technology in Context: Technology Assessment for Managers. Rout- & Praxis: International Journal of Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment
ledge, London. 9 (1/2), 27–41, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10202-012-0122-5.
Brooks, H., 1976. Technology Assessment in Retrospect. Newsletter on Science, Tech- Hennen, L., Ladikas, M., 2009. Embedding society in European science and tech-
nology and Human Values 17, 17–29. nology policy advice. In: Ladikas, M. (Ed.), Embedding Society in Science and
Brooks, S., Thompson, J., Odame, H., Kibaara, B., Nderitu, S., Karin, F., Millstone, E., Technology Policy – European and Chinese perspectives. European Commission,
2009. Environmental Change and Maize Innovation in Kenya: Exploring Path- Brussels, pp. 39–64, 27/223.
ways In and Out of Maize, STEPS Working Paper 36. STEPS Centre, Brighton. Hirakawa, H., 2010. Outline of the Project “Deliberation and Collaboration between
CEC, 2011. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Citizens and Scientists (DeCoCiS)”, introduction to the session on “Empowering
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Citizens and Scientists to engage in Deliberative Dialogue, Community-based
the Regions – Rio + 20: towards the green economy and better governance, Research and Technology Assessment. Annual Meeting of the Society for the
COM(2011) 363 final. Social Studies of Science (4S), Tokyo.
Chambers, R., Pacey, R., Thrupp, L.A., 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Hood, C., 2002. Managing risk and managing blame: a political science approach.
Agricultural Research. ITDG Publishing, Rugby. In: Weale, A. (Ed.), Risk, Democratic Citizenship and Public Policy. OUP/British
Chambers, R., 1993. Challenging the Professions: Frontiers for Rural Development. Academy Press, Oxford.
ITP, London. Hoppe, R., Grin, J., 1999. Pollution through traffic and transport: the praxis of cultural
Chambers, R., 1994. The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World pluralism in parliamentarian technology assessment. In: Thompson, M., Grend-
Development 22 (7), 953–969. stad, G., Selle, P. (Eds.), Cultural Theory as Political Science. Taylor & Francis,
Châtel, B.H., 1979. Technology assessment and developing countries. Technological Abingdon, UK.
Forecasting and Social Change 13, 203–211. Hoppe, R., 2010. The Governance of Problems: Puzzling, Powering and Participation.
Chen, S., Ravallion, M., 2008. The Developing World Is Poorer Than We Thought, But The Policy Press, Bristol.
No Less Successful in the Fight against Poverty - World Bank Policy Research Houghton, A., 1995. ‘In Memoriam: The Office of Technology Assessment 1972–95’
Working Paper Series 4703, World Bank, Washington DC. Congressional Record, Extension of Remarks – September 28., pp. E1868–E1870,
Chen, D., Wu, C.-L., 2007. Introduction: public participation in science and technol- http://fas.org/ota/technology assessment and congress/houghton/ (accessed
ogy in East Asia. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International 09.05.11).
Journal 1, 15–18. IAASTD, 2009. Agriculture at a Crossroads. International Assessment on Agricultural
Coghlan, A., 2008. How to kickstart an agricultural revolution. New Scientist, 5th Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Synthesis Report. Island
April. Press, Washington, DC.
Collingridge, D., 1980. The Social Control of Technology. Open University Press, IFOAM, 2008. IFOAM Appreciates IAASTD Report on a New Agriculture Paradigm
Milton Keynes. Focusing on Poor Farmers as a Step in the Right Direction. International Feder-
Collingridge, D., 1983. Technology in the Policy Process: Controlling Nuclear Power. ation of Organic Agriculture Movements, Bonn.
Frances Pinter, London. IIED, 2007. A Citizens Space for Democratic Deliberation on GMOs and the Future
Dosi, G., Nelson, R.R., 1994. An introduction to evolutionary theories in economics. of Farming in Mali. International Institute for Environment and Development,
Journal of Evolutionary Economics 4, 153–172. London.
de Finetti, N., 1974. Theory of Probability. Wiley, New York. IPTS, 1999. ‘On Science and Precaution in the Management of Technological Risk’,
Dreyer, M., Renn, O., 2009. Food Safety Governance: Integrating Science, Precaution final synthesis report of a project conducted for the EC Forward Studies Unit
and Public Involvement. Springer, Berlin. under the auspices of the ESTO Network.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
Jaeger, C., Webler, T., Rosa, E., Renn, O., 2001. Risk Uncertainty and Rational Action. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton,
Earthscan, London. T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., De Wit, C.A., Hughes,
Jasanoff, S., 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social T., Van Der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sorlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin,
Order. Routledge, London and New York. U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B.,
Klüver, L., Nentwich, M., Peissl, W., Torgersen, H., Gloede, F., Hennen, L., Eijnd- Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J.A., 2009. A safe operating space
hoven, J.V., Est, R.V., Joss, S., Bellucci, S., Bütschi, D., 2000. European Participatory for humanity. Nature 461 (7263), 472–475.
Technology Assessment: Participatory Methods in Technology Assessment and Rodmeyer, M., Sarewitz, D., Wilsdon, J., 2005. The Future of Technology Assessment.
Technology Decision-Making. Danish Board of Technology, Copenhagen. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington DC.
Knight, F., 1921. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Rosenberg, N., 1982. Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge,
Kuhlmann, S., 2001. Evaluation as a source of strategic intelligence. In: Shapira, University Press, Cambridge.
P., Kuhlmann, S. (Eds.), Proceedings from the 2000 US-European Workshop Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 1998. Setting Environmental Stan-
on Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation. Bad Herrenalb, dards, Twenty-first Report. HMSO, London.
Germany, pp. 11.21–11.59. Royal Society & Royal Academy of Engineering, 2004. Nanoscience and Nanotech-
Kuruganti, K., Pimbert, M., Wakeford, T., 2008. The people’s vision – UK and Indian nologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. Royal Society & Royal Academy of
reflections on Prajateerpu. Participatory Learning and Action 58, 12–17. Engineering, London.
Ladikas, M., Decker, M. 2004. Assessing the Impact of Future-Oriented Technology Rusike, E., 2003. Izwi neTarisiro – Zimbabwe’s Citizens Jury, vol. October. Seedling.
Assessment. In: Proceedings of EU-US Seminar: New technology foresight, Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T., Campolongo, F., 2008. Global Sensitivity Analysis:
forecasting and assessment methods, Seville, 13–14 May 2004 (pp. 2–14) The Primer. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester.
http://foresight.jrc.ec.europa.eu/fta/papers/Session%204%20What’s%20the% Sclove, R., 2010. Reinventing Technology Assessment: a 21st Century Model.
20Use/Assessing%20the%20Impact%20of%20Future-Oriented%20Technology. Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, Washington, DC.
pdf (accessed 14.10.2013). Scoones, I., Leach, M., Smith, A., Stagl, S., Stirling, A., Thompson, J., 2007. Dynamic Sys-
Landau, R., Taylor, T., Wright, G. (Eds.), 1996. The Mosaic of Economic Growth. Stan- tems and the Challenge of Sustainability, STEPS Working Paper 1. STEPS Centre,
ford University Press, Stanford. Brighton.
Leach, M., Scoones, I., Stirling, A., 2007. Pathways to Sustainability: An Overview of Scoones, I., Thompson, J. (Eds.), 2009. Farmer First Revisited: Innovation for Agricul-
the STEPS Centre Approach. STEPS Centre, Brighton. tural Research and Development. Practical Action, Rugby.
Leach, M., Scoones, I., Stirling, A., 2010. Dynamic Sustainabilities: Technology, Envi- Scoones, I., 2008. Global Engagements with Global Assessments: The Case of the
ronment and Social Justice. EarthScan, London. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology
Loasby, B., 1976. Choice Complexity and Ignorance: An Inquiry into Economic Theory for Development (IAASTD), IDS Working Paper 313. Institute of Development
and the Practice of Decision Making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Studies, Brighton.
Loeber, A., 2004. Method and practice of interactive technology assessment: learning Scoones, I., 2009. The politics of global assessments: the case of the International
from a Dutch analytic experiment on sustainable crop protection. In: European Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Develop-
Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST) Conference, Paris. ment (IAASTD). Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (3), 547–571.
Lux Research, 2010. Ranking the Nations on Nanotech: Hidden Havens and False STEPS Centre, 2010. Innovation, Sustainability, Development: A New Manifesto.
Threats – State of the Market Report. Lux Research Inc., Boston, MA. STEPS Centre, Brighton.
Martin, B.R., Johnston, R., 1999. Technology foresight for wiring up the national Stilgoe, J., 2007. Nanodialogues: Experiments in Public Engagement with Science.
innovation system – a review of recent government exercises. Technological DEMOS, London.
Forecasting and Social Change 60 (1), 37–54. Stirling, A., 1998. Risk at a turning point? Journal of Risk Research 1 (2), 97–109.
Mayer, S., Stirling, A., 2004. GM crops, for good or bad? Those who choose the ques- Stirling, A., Mayer, S., 2001. A novel approach to the appraisal of technological risk:
tions, determine the answers. European Molecular Biology Organisation Reports a multicriteria mapping study of a genetically modified crop. Environment and
5 (1). Planning C: Government and Policy 19 (4), 529–555.
Mehta, L., Srinivasan, B., 1999. Balancing Pains and Gains. A perspective paper on Stirling, A., 2003. Risk, uncertainty and precaution: some instrumental implications
gender and dams, Thematic Review 1.1, The Social Impacts of Large Dams: Equity from the social sciences. In: Scoones, I., Leach, M., Berkhout, F. (Eds.), Negotiating
and Distributional Issues, World Commission on Dams, www.dams.org Change: Perspectives in Environmental Social Science. Edward Elgar, London.
Mellado, R. (Ed.), 2010. Nanotecnología de agua y saneamiento, Perú: Memorias del Stirling, A., 2006. Precaution, foresight and sustainability: reflection and
seminario y taller. Practical Action and Consejo Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología reflexivity in the governance of technology. In: Voss, J., Kemp, R. (Eds.),
e Innovación Tecnológica, Lima. Sustainability and Reflexive Governance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham,
Milanovic, B., 2010. The Haves and the Have-Nots: A Brief and Idiosyncratic History pp. 225–272.
of Global Inequality. Basic Books, New York. Stirling, A., 2007. A general framework for analyzing diversity in science, technology
Morgan, M.G., Henrion, M., 1990. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty and society. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 4, 707–719.
in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Stirling, A., Leach, M., Mehta, L., Scoones, I., Smith, A., Stagl, S., Thomp-
Nature, 2008. Editorial: deserting the hungry? Nature 451, 223–224. son, J., 2007. Empowering Designs: towards more progressive
Nature Biotechnology, 2008. Editorial: off the rails. Nature Biotechnology 26, 247. appraisal of sustainability, STEPS Working Paper 3. STEPS Centre,
Nelson, R., Winter, S.G., 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap Brighton.
Press, Cambridge, MA. Stirling, A., 2008. ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: power, participation and plural-
NRC National Research Council, 1996. Understanding risk: informing decisions in a ism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values
democratic society. In: National Research Council Committee on Risk Charac- 33 (2), 262–294.
terisation. National Academy Press, Washington. Stirling, A., Scoones, I., 2009. From risk assessment to knowledge mapping: science,
OECD, 1986. Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations: Safety Considerations for precaution, and participation in disease ecology. Ecology and Society 14 (2), 14.
Industrial, Agricultural and Environmental Applications of Organisms Derived Stirling, A., 2010. Keep it complex. Nature 468, 1029–1031.
by Recombinant DNA Techniques. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Stirling, A., 2012. From Sustainability, through diversity to transformation: towards
Development, Paris. more reflexive governance of technological vulnerability. In: Hommels, A., Mes-
OECD, 2009. OECD Work on the International Futures Programme: Horizons. Orga- man, J., Bijker, W. (Eds.), Vulnerability in Technological Cultures: New Directions
nisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris. in Research and Governance. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ornetzeder, M., Kastenhofer, K., 2012. Old problems, new directions and upcom- Talyarkhan, S., Grimshaw, D.J., Lowe, L., 2004. Connecting the First Mile: Inves-
ing requirements in participatory technology assessment. Poiesis & Praxis, tigating Best Practice for ICTs and Information Sharing for Development.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10202-012-0116-3. Intermediate Technology Development Group (now Practical Action) and Cran-
Parsons, A., 2008. “World Bank Poverty Figures: What Do They Mean?”, field School of Management, Rugby and Cranfield.
Share the World’s Resources, http://www.stwr.org/globalization/world-bank- Thompson, J., Brooks, S., Morgan, M., Millstone, E., Odame, H., Karin, F., Adwera, A.,
poverty-figures-what-do-theymean.html (accessed 10.09.09). 2011. Orphans or Siblings? Opportunities and Constraints in Alternative Dryland
Pellizzoni, L., 2001. The myth of the best argument: power deliberation and reason. Staple Crops, Project Briefing 5, ‘Environmental Change & Maize Innovation in
British Journal of Sociology 52 (1), 59–86. Kenya: Exploring Pathways In and Out of Maize’ Project. STEPS Centre, Brighton.
Pellizzoni, L., 2003. Uncertainty and participatory democracy. Environmental Values Toni, A., Von Braun, J., 2001. Poor citizens decide on the introduction of
12 (2), 195–224, http://dx.doi.org/10.3197/096327103129341298. GMOs in Brazil. Biotechnology and Development Monitor 47 (September),
Ravetz, J., 1986. Usable knowledge, usable ignorance: incomplete science with pol- 7–9.
icy implications. In: Clark, W., Munn, C. (Eds.), Sustainable Development of the Tran, T.A., Daim, T., 2008. A taxonomic review of methods and tools applied in
Biosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75 (9),
Rejeski, D., 2005. Open-source Technology Assessment or e.Technology Assessment. 1396–1405.
Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, Washington DC. UNICEF, 2006. Diluting the Pain of Arsenic Poisoning in Nepal United
Renn, O., Webler, T., Wiedemann, P., 1995. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Par- Nations Childrens Fund (accessed 14.10.13) http://www.unicef.org/
ticipation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht, Kluwer. infobycountry/nepal 35975.html
Renn, O., 1999. A model for an analytic-deliberative process in risk management. UNDP, 2011. Human Development Report 2011 – Sustainability and Equity: A Better
Environmental Science and Technology 33 (18), 3049–3055. Future for All. United Nations Development Programme, New York.
Rip, A., 1986. Controversies as informal technology assessment. Knowledge: Cre- UNEP, 2011. Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and
ation, Diffusion, Utilization 8 (2), 349–371. Poverty Eradication. www.unep.org/greeneconomy
Rip, A., Schot, J.W., Misa, T.J., 1995. Managing Technology in Society: The Approach UNESCO, 2010. UNESCO Science Report 2010. United Nations Education, Scientific
of Constructive Technology Assessment. Pinter Publishers, New York. and Cultural Organisation, Paris.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
UNFCCC, 2010. Fact sheet: A technology revolution to address climate Wager, R., 2008. Why the IAASTD Failed. Agbioworld, November 5th.
change. http://unfccc.int/files/press/news room/application/pdf/fact sheet a Wagner, C., 2008. The New Invisible College: Science for Development. Brookings
technology revo lution to address climate change.pdf (accessed 04.03.12). Institution Press, Washington, DC.
United Nations, 1979. General Assembly Resolution 34/218 – Thirty-fourth Session. Wakeford, T., 2001. A selection of methods used in deliberative and inclusionary
United Nations, New York. processes. PLA Notes 40, 29–31.
United Nations, 2012a. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2012. United Wakeford, T., 2004. Democratising Technology: Reclaiming Science for Sustainable
Nations, New York. Development. Intermediate Technology Development Group, Rugby.
United Nations, 2012b. Report of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Wilson, R., Casey, A., 2008. Teleparticipation: Engaging Millions. Involve, London.
Development Rio de Janeiro , Brazil, 20–22 June 2012, A/CONF.216/16. New York. Wynne, B., 1975. The rhetoric of consensus politics: a critical review of technology
Van Zwanenberg, P., Ely, A., Stirling, A., 2009. Emerging Technologies and Opportu- assessment’. Research Policy 4, 108–158.
nities for International Science and Technology Foresight, STEPS Working Paper Wynne, B., 1992. ‘Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science
30. STEPS Centre, Brighton. and policy in the preventive paradigm’. Global Environmental Change 2 (2),
Van Zwanenberg, P., Arza, V., 2013. Biotechnology and its configurations: GM cotton 111–127.
production on large and small farms in Argentina. Technology in Society 35 (2), Wynne, B., 2002. Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology:
105–117. reflexivity inside out? Current Sociology 50 (3), 459–477.
von Hayek, F., 1978. New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History Yoshizawa, G., 2010. Third Generation of Technology Assessment. Annual Meeting
of Ideas. Chicago University Press, Chicago. of the Society for the Social Studies of Science (4S), Tokyo.

Research Policy openingupTA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Policy openingupTA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Policy openingupTA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Research Policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Broadening out and opening up technology assessment: Approaches

1. Introduction against this background that widespread international recognition

2 A. Ely et al. / Research Policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

A. Ely et al. / Research Policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 3

4 A. Ely et al. / Research Policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

A. Ely et al. / Research Policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 5

6 A. Ely et al. / Research Policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

A. Ely et al. / Research Policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 7

8 A. Ely et al. / Research Policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

A. Ely et al. / Research Policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 9

10 A. Ely et al. / Research Policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

A. Ely et al. / Research Policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 11

12 A. Ely et al. / Research Policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

A. Ely et al. / Research Policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 13

14 A. Ely et al. / Research Policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

You might also like