IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Rohstoffgewinnung und Technologieentwicklung in Deutschland im Wandel: Sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven


  • Bleicher, Alena
  • David, Martin
  • Rutjes, Henriette
  • Wallkamm, Magdalena


[Einleitung ...] In einem ersten Schritt ging es darum, die vielfältigen Beziehungen von Technologieentwicklung und Gesellschaft aufzuzeigen und zu verstehen. Es wurde herausgearbeitet, auf welche Weise Forschung und Entwicklung von ihrem gesellschaftlichen Umfeld beeinflusst werden. Methodisch wurde dafür ein explorativer Ansatz gewählt, der es ermöglichte, im bisher wenig konturierten Forschungsfeld systematisch fallvergleichend vorzugehen (vgl. Kapitel 2). Es wurden sogenannte soziokulturelle Faktoren identifiziert, die in Prozessen der Technologieentwicklung förderlich oder hinderlich wirksam werden können. In der Analyse wurden insgesamt vier Kategorien abgeleitet, unter denen sich die soziokulturellen Faktoren fassen lassen (Kapitel 3.1 bis 3.4). Eine erste Kategorie umfasst Faktoren, die die Rolle von Akteuren problematisieren. Diese Faktoren nehmen insbesondere auf die Ausgestaltung von Interaktionen in Innovationsprozessen Bezug. Eine zweite, im Zuge der Analysen identifizierte Kategorie bündelt Faktoren, die sich auf den Einfluss von Werten in der Technologieentwicklung beziehen. Die Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung stellt heraus, dass Werte in den Entwicklungsprozess einfließen und auf diese Weise die Gestalt von Technologien mitbestimmen (Guston 2008, Fisher et al. 2015). Die dritte Kategorie beinhaltet Faktoren, die sich auf kulturell geprägte Prozesse der Interpretation technologischer Entwicklungen beziehen. Solche Interpretationen werden teils strategisch kommuniziert, um bestimmte Sinnzusammenhänge herauszustellen. Schließlich bezieht sich eine vierte Kategorie von Faktoren auf die Arten von Wissen, die im Prozess der Technologieentwicklung eingebunden sind. Die Analysen zeigten, dass gerade Wissen, das in lokalen und regionalen Kontexten entsteht, im untersuchten Feld die Technologieentwicklung beeinflusst. Die identifizierten Faktoren und Kategorien wurden im Rahmen von Workshops mit verschiedenen Stakeholdergruppen diskutiert, um die Forschungsergebnisse und Analysen nachzujustieren. Die Workshopdiskussionen werden im Kapitel 4 dargestellt. In den Kapiteln 5.1 bis 5.4 wird das Zusammenspiel von Faktoren im Hinblick auf ihre Wirkung in Technologieentwicklungsprozessen in Deutschland herausgearbeitet. Das Papier schließt mit einer Zusammenfassung der wichtigsten Ergebnisse, die in die weitere Arbeit einfließen werden.

Suggested Citation

  • Bleicher, Alena & David, Martin & Rutjes, Henriette & Wallkamm, Magdalena, 2017. "Rohstoffgewinnung und Technologieentwicklung in Deutschland im Wandel: Sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven," UFZ Reports 05/2017, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ufzrep:052017

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Owen, John R. & Kemp, Deanna, 2013. "Social licence and mining: A critical perspective," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 29-35.
    2. Pellizzone, Anna & Allansdottir, Agnes & De Franco, Roberto & Muttoni, Giovanni & Manzella, Adele, 2017. "Geothermal energy and the public: A case study on deliberative citizens’ engagement in central Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 561-570.
    3. Grant Jordan & Darren Halpin, 2004. "Olson Triumphant? Recruitment Strategies and the Growth of a Small Business Organisation," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 52, pages 431-449, October.
    4. Bergek, Anna & Berggren, Christian & Magnusson, Thomas & Hobday, Michael, 2013. "Technological discontinuities and the challenge for incumbent firms: Destruction, disruption or creative accumulation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1210-1224.
    5. Bleicher, Alena & Gross, Matthias, 2016. "Geothermal heat pumps and the vagaries of subterranean geology: Energy independence at a household level as a real world experiment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 279-288.
    6. Weingart, Peter, 1998. "Science and the media," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 869-879, December.
    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. Anne-Maree Dowd & Michelle Rodriguez & Talia Jeanneret, 2015. "Social Science Insights for the BioCCS Industry," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 8(5), pages 1-19, May.
    2. Hellsmark, Hans & Hansen, Teis, 2020. "A new dawn for (oil) incumbents within the bioeconomy? Trade-offs and lessons for policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    3. Stephen Roper & Nola Hewitt-Dundas, 2017. "Investigating a neglected part of Schumpeter’s creative army: what drives new-to-the-market innovation in micro-enterprises?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 559-577, October.
    4. Geels, Frank W. & Kern, Florian & Fuchs, Gerhard & Hinderer, Nele & Kungl, Gregor & Mylan, Josephine & Neukirch, Mario & Wassermann, Sandra, 2016. "The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 896-913.
    5. Mäkitie, Tuukka & Normann, Håkon E. & Thune, Taran M. & Sraml Gonzalez, Jakoba, 2019. "The green flings: Norwegian oil and gas industry’s engagement in offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 269-279.
    6. Zilliox, Skylar & Smith, Jessica M., 2017. "Memorandums of understanding and public trust in local government for Colorado's unconventional energy industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 72-81.
    7. Clayton M. Christensen & Rory McDonald & Elizabeth J. Altman & Jonathan E. Palmer, 2018. "Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1043-1078, November.
    8. Kattirtzi, Michael & Ketsopoulou, Ioanna & Watson, Jim, 2021. "Incumbents in transition? The role of the ‘Big Six’ energy companies in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PA).
    9. Viveros, Hector, 2017. "Unpacking stakeholder mechanisms to influence corporate social responsibility in the mining sector," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-12.
    10. Ki‐Hoon Lee, 2017. "Does Size Matter? Evaluating Corporate Environmental Disclosure in the Australian Mining and Metal Industry: A Combined Approach of Quantity and Quality Measurement," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 209-223, February.
    11. McMeekin, Andrew & Geels, Frank W. & Hodson, Mike, 2019. "Mapping the winds of whole system reconfiguration: Analysing low-carbon transformations across production, distribution and consumption in the UK electricity system (1990–2016)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1216-1231.
    12. Bowles, Paul & MacPhail, Fiona & Tetreault, Darcy, 2019. "Social licence versus procedural justice: Competing narratives of (Il)legitimacy at the San Xavier mine, Mexico," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 157-165.
    13. Andersen, Allan Dahl & Markard, Jochen, 2020. "Multi-technology interaction in socio-technical transitions: How recent dynamics in HVDC technology can inform transition theories," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    14. Kemp, Deanna & Worden, Sandy & Owen, John R., 2016. "Differentiated social risk: Rebound dynamics and sustainability performance in mining," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 19-26.
    15. Mercer-Mapstone, Lucy & Rifkin, Will & Moffat, Kieren & Louis, Winnifred, 2017. "Conceptualising the role of dialogue in social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 137-146.
    16. Ralph Hamann & Lulamile Makaula & Gina Ziervogel & Clifford Shearing & Alan Zhang, 2020. "Strategic Responses to Grand Challenges: Why and How Corporations Build Community Resilience," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 161(4), pages 835-853, February.
    17. Wright, Susan & Bice, Sara, 2017. "Beyond social capital: A strategic action fields approach to social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 284-295.
    18. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.
    19. Epicoco, Marianna, 2016. "Patterns of innovation and organizational demography in emerging sustainable fields: An analysis of the chemical sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 427-441.
    20. Melikoglu, Mehmet, 2017. "Geothermal energy in Turkey and around the World: A review of the literature and an analysis based on Turkey's Vision 2023 energy targets," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 485-492.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:zbw:ufzrep:052017. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.