IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v139y2019icp42-47.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

TA at the crossroads: Politics of TA from the viewpoint of societal problem solving

Author

Listed:
  • Böschen, Stefan

Abstract

Currently, the underlying, ever-existing politics of TA are surfacing and challenging TA in its self-understanding as expertise. This article suggests two arguments. First, as the ways of constructing and articulating knowledge for politics are changing, the concept of epistemic regimes offers a new analytical perspective on problem-solving processes and the relevance of the different knowledges involved. These knowledges will be analysed as indicators, which are combining knowledge claims with normative valuations (criteria) and empirical observations (observable). Thus, the inherent politics of knowledge can be interpreted as “indicator politics.” Second, this article argues that the current politics of TA can be reconstructed as a non-reflective use of indicators. Typically, TA only admits in general normative influences, but does not disclose them in detail. With the approach suggested here, the concrete linkages between knowledges and values as well as the limitations of knowledges can be unveiled—offering TA the chance to reflect its use of indicators and therefore its own politics.

Suggested Citation

  • Böschen, Stefan, 2019. "TA at the crossroads: Politics of TA from the viewpoint of societal problem solving," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 42-47.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:139:y:2019:i:c:p:42-47
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162518300428
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grupp, Hariolf & Mogee, Mary Ellen, 2004. "Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1373-1384, November.
    2. Freeman, Chris, 1995. "The 'National System of Innovation' in Historical Perspective," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 5-24, February.
    3. Grupp, Hariolf & Schubert, Torben, 2010. "Review and new evidence on composite innovation indicators for evaluating national performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 67-78, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Edquist , Charles & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia , Jon Mikel, 2015. "The Innovation Union Scoreboard is flawed: The Case of Sweden – not the innovation leader of the EU – updated version," Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/27, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    2. Khatab Alqararah, 2023. "Assessing the robustness of composite indicators: the case of the Global Innovation Index," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, December.
    3. Carayannis, Elias G. & Goletsis, Yorgos & Grigoroudis, Evangelos, 2018. "Composite innovation metrics: MCDA and the Quadruple Innovation Helix framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 4-17.
    4. Attila Havas, 2016. "Social and Business Innovations: Are Common Measurement Approaches Possible?," Foresight-Russia Форсайт, CyberLeninka;Федеральное государственное автономное образовательное учреждение высшего образования «Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики», vol. 10(2 (eng)), pages 58-80.
    5. Zofio, Jose Luis & Aparicio, Juan & Barbero, Javier & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel, 2023. "The influence of bottlenecks on innovation systems performance: Put the slowest climber first," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    6. Chun-rong Zhao & Bo Zhou & Xin Su, 2014. "Evaluation of Urban Eco-Security—A Case Study of Mianyang City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-19, April.
    7. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold & Pyka, Andreas & Leoneti, Alexandre Bevilacqua, 2021. "On the performance and strategy of innovation systems: A multicriteria group decision analysis approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    8. Salvatore Greco & Alessio Ishizaka & Menelaos Tasiou & Gianpiero Torrisi, 2019. "On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the Issues of Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 141(1), pages 61-94, January.
    9. Barbero, Javier & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel & Zofío, José L., 2021. "Is more always better? On the relevance of decreasing returns to scale on innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    10. Helen Lawton Smith & Saverio Romeo, 2016. "Regional Environments and Sector Developments: the Biotech Sector in Oxfordshire," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 7(4), pages 905-919, December.
    11. Sayel Basel & K. U. Gopakumar & R. Prabhakara Rao, 2020. "Broad-based index for measurement of development," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 22(1), pages 182-206, June.
    12. Sanchez, Juana, 2014. "Non-technological and Mixed Modes of Innovation in the United States. Evidence from the Business Research and Development and Innovation Survey, 2008-2011," MPRA Paper 58719, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Juana Sanchez, 2014. "Innovation Output Choices And Characteristics Of Firms In The U.S," Working Papers 14-42, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    14. Michener, Gregory, 2015. "Policy Evaluation via Composite Indexes: Qualitative Lessons from International Transparency Policy Indexes," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 184-196.
    15. Ziwei Shu & Ramón Alberto Carrasco & Javier Portela García-Miguel & Manuel Sánchez-Montañés, 2022. "Multiple Scenarios of Quality of Life Index Using Fuzzy Linguistic Quantifiers: The Case of 85 Countries in Numbeo," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-28, June.
    16. Rafols, Ismael & Stirling, Andy, 2020. "Designing indicators for opening up evaluation. Insights from research assessment," SocArXiv h2fxp, Center for Open Science.
    17. Attila Havas, 2014. "Trapped by the high-tech myth: the need and chances for a new policy rationale," Chapters, in: Hartmut Hirsch-Kreinsen & Isabel Schwinge (ed.), Knowledge-Intensive Entrepreneurship in Low-Tech Industries, chapter 9, pages 193-217, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Ana Garcia-Bernabeu & José Manuel Cabello & Francisco Ruiz, 2020. "A Multi-Criteria Reference Point Based Approach for Assessing Regional Innovation Performance in Spain," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-21, May.
    19. Nasierowski Wojciech, 2019. "Reflections on Discussions About Technical Efficiency of Innovativeness of Countries," Foundations of Management, Sciendo, vol. 11(1), pages 165-176, January.
    20. Filippetti, Andrea & Peyrache, Antonio, 2011. "The Patterns of Technological Capabilities of Countries: A Dual Approach using Composite Indicators and Data Envelopment Analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 1108-1121, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:139:y:2019:i:c:p:42-47. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.