IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v28y2008i5p1197-1220.html

An Integrated Approach to Oversight Assessment for Emerging Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Kuzma
  • Jordan Paradise
  • Gurumurthy Ramachandran
  • Jee‐Ae Kim
  • Adam Kokotovich
  • Susan M. Wolf

Abstract

Analysis of oversight systems is often conducted from a single disciplinary perspective and by using a limited set of criteria for evaluation. In this article, we develop an approach that blends risk analysis, social science, public administration, legal, public policy, and ethical perspectives to develop a broad set of criteria for assessing oversight systems. Multiple methods, including historical analysis, expert elicitation, and behavioral consensus, were employed to develop multidisciplinary criteria for evaluating oversight of emerging technologies. Sixty‐six initial criteria were identified from extensive literature reviews and input from our Working Group. Criteria were placed in four categories reflecting the development, attributes, evolution, and outcomes of oversight systems. Expert elicitation, consensus methods, and multidisciplinary review of the literature were used to refine a condensed, operative set of criteria. Twenty‐eight criteria resulted spanning four categories: seven development criteria, 15 attribute criteria, five outcome criteria, and one evolution criterion. These criteria illuminate how oversight systems develop, operate, change, and affect society. We term our approach “integrated oversight assessment” and propose its use as a tool for analyzing relationships among features, outcomes, and tradeoffs of oversight systems. Comparisons among historical case studies of oversight using a consistent set of criteria should result in defensible and evidence‐supported lessons to guide the development of oversight systems for emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Kuzma & Jordan Paradise & Gurumurthy Ramachandran & Jee‐Ae Kim & Adam Kokotovich & Susan M. Wolf, 2008. "An Integrated Approach to Oversight Assessment for Emerging Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1197-1220, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:5:p:1197-1220
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01086.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01086.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01086.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Newell, 2003. "Globalization and the Governance of Biotechnology," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 3(2), pages 56-71, May.
    2. L. J. Frewer & C. Howard & D. Hedderley & R. Shepherd, 1996. "What Determines Trust in Information About Food‐Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 473-486, August.
    3. Lacy Glenn Thomas, 1990. "Regulation and Firm Size: FDA Impacts on Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(4), pages 497-517, Winter.
    4. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Hans Kastenholz & Silvia Frey & Arnim Wiek, 2007. "Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 59-69, February.
    5. A. Ogus, 2002. "Regulatory Institutions And Structures," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(4), pages 627-648, December.
    6. Wiek, Arnim & Zemp, Stefan & Siegrist, Michael & Walter, Alexander I., 2007. "Sustainable governance of emerging technologies—Critical constellations in the agent network of nanotechnology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 388-406.
    7. Adam B. Jaffe & Karen Palmer, 1997. "Environmental Regulation And Innovation: A Panel Data Study," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(4), pages 610-619, November.
    8. I. Linkov & F. K. Satterstrom & G. Kiker & T. P. Seager & T. Bridges & K. H. Gardner & S. H. Rogers & D. A. Belluck & A. Meyer, 2006. "Multicriteria Decision Analysis: A Comprehensive Decision Approach for Management of Contaminated Sediments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 61-78, February.
    9. repec:aen:journl:1990v11-03-a02 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    11. Robert L. Winkler, 1968. "The Consensus of Subjective Probability Distributions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 61-75, October.
    12. Sterman, John., 1994. "Learning in and about complex systems," Working papers 3660-94., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jennifer Kuzma & Susanna Priest, 2010. "Nanotechnology, Risk, and Oversight: Learning Lessons from Related Emerging Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(11), pages 1688-1698, November.
    2. Mark Philbrick, 2010. "An Anticipatory Governance Approach to Carbon Nanotubes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(11), pages 1708-1722, November.
    3. Benjamin Trump & Christopher Cummings & Jennifer Kuzma & Igor Linkov, 2018. "A decision analytic model to guide early‐stage government regulatory action: Applications for synthetic biology," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 88-100, March.
    4. Igor Linkov & Benjamin D. Trump & Elke Anklam & David Berube & Patrick Boisseasu & Christopher Cummings & Scott Ferson & Marie-Valentine Florin & Bernard Goldstein & Danail Hristozov & Keld Alstrup Je, 2018. "Comparative, collaborative, and integrative risk governance for emerging technologies," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 170-176, June.

    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. repec:plo:pone00:0110614 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Jing Wu & Yaoyi Cai, 2025. "The Paradox of AI Knowledge: A Blockchain-Based Approach to Decentralized Governance in Chinese New Media Industry," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-31, October.
    3. Michael Siegrist & Philipp Hübner & Christina Hartmann, 2018. "Risk Prioritization in the Food Domain Using Deliberative and Survey Methods: Differences between Experts and Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 504-524, March.
    4. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.
    5. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn Frewer, 2007. "Understanding Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: Its Two‐Dimensional Structure and Determinants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 729-740, June.
    6. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    7. Xiang Deng & Li Li, 2020. "Promoting or Inhibiting? The Impact of Environmental Regulation on Corporate Financial Performance—An Empirical Analysis Based on China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-17, May.
    8. Stephanie Moser & Susanne Elisabeth Bruppacher & Hans‐Joachim Mosler, 2011. "How People Perceive and Will Cope with Risks from the Diffusion of Ubiquitous Information and Communication Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 832-846, May.
    9. George Chryssochoidis & Anna Strada & Athanasios Krystallis, 2009. "Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 137-185, March.
    10. Jennifer Kuzma & James Romanchek & Adam Kokotovich, 2008. "Upstream Oversight Assessment for Agrifood Nanotechnology: A Case Studies Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1081-1098, August.
    11. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    12. Nuortimo, Kalle & Härkönen, Janne, 2018. "Opinion mining approach to study media-image of energy production. Implications to public acceptance and market deployment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 210-217.
    13. Arning, K. & Offermann-van Heek, J. & Ziefle, M., 2021. "What drives public acceptance of sustainable CO2-derived building materials? A conjoint-analysis of eco-benefits vs. health concerns," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    14. Nathalie Stampfli & Michael Siegrist & Hans Kastenholz, 2010. "Acceptance of nanotechnology in food and food packaging: a path model analysis," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 353-365, April.
    15. E. Van Kleef & J. R. Houghton & A. Krystallis & U. Pfenning & G. Rowe & H. Van Dijk & I. A. Van der Lans & L. J. Frewer, 2007. "Consumer Evaluations of Food Risk Management Quality in Europe," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1565-1580, December.
    16. Martin, Ralf & Muûls, Mirabelle & de Preux, Laure B. & Wagner, Ulrich J., 2012. "Anatomy of a paradox: Management practices, organizational structure and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 208-223.
    17. Lu, Jinfeng & Dimov, Dimo, 2023. "A system dynamics modelling of entrepreneurship and growth within firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 38(3).
    18. Carrión-Flores, Carmen E. & Innes, Robert, 2010. "Environmental innovation and environmental performance," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 27-42, January.
    19. Zeng, Jing & Duan, Hongyu & Zhu, Weiwei & Song, Jingyan, 2024. "Understanding residents’ risk information seeking, processing and sharing regarding waste incineration power projects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    20. Hille, Erik & Althammer, Wilhelm & Diederich, Henning, 2020. "Environmental regulation and innovation in renewable energy technologies: Does the policy instrument matter?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    21. Lynn J. Frewer & Chaya Howard & Duncan Hedderley & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "Methodological Approaches to Assessing Risk Perceptions Associated with Food‐Related Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 95-102, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:5:p:1197-1220. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.