Review of Andrew Jamison, The Making of Green Knowledge: Environmental Politics and Cultural Transformation, Cambridge University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-521-79687-3.
Many readers of EASST Review will know the American scholar Andrew Jamison, now living in Sweden and professor in Technology and Society at Aalborg University in Denmark. In his contributions to the EASST Review Jamison has written about sustainable technology, so-called green knowledge, and most recently the interventions of Bjørn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. Jamison critically describes the role of this Danish enfant terrible and compares Lomborg to Trofim Lysenko in the pre-war Soviet Union. Needless to say, Jamison’s primary interest is in politics, science and technology, social movements and the interrelationships between these issues.
In his latest book, THE MAKING OF GREEN KNOWLEDGE, we recognize these different characteristics of Jamison: his engagement with the environmental movement, his interest in environmental technology and his involvement in environmental policy. Jamison describes the development and impact of the environmental movement from the 1960s onwards, worldwide, but not surprisingly, more specifically in the United States, Sweden and Denmark. He strives to place this development in its wider social context, such as changes in policy, science, technology, economics, and the behaviour of relevant industries. Several social theories come along is his analyses. But this book is mainly a reflection on a personal journey through concepts and practices to find and shape a more democratic and environmentally friendly world. The book offers a broad overview of many relevant aspects of this journey and this world, but as a consequence in-depth analyses are not abundant.
In certain aspects, the introduction of the book is the most intriguing part. Here Jamison describes his personal development as an activist and a scholar in technology and society. Jamison came to Sweden in 1970, 20 years old, just graduated ‘from a battle-scarred Harvard, taking part in the anti-war movement and in the more all-encompassing “dialectics of liberation” that filled the air at the time.’ He hoped to find an ecological society in Europe. Remember that 1970 was the so-called European Year of Nature Conservation and that in 1972 the first UN conference on environmental problems was held in Stockholm.
Jamison was practically involved in the environmental movement, and wrote for instance a book about steam-powered automobiles ‘as an answer to air pollution’. In Sweden Jamison met people who were fighting against food additives and GMO’s. During this period, Jamison became aware of the need for a social and economic analysis, and even more importantly, an alternative vision and practice, ‘if environmentalism were ever to appeal to the majority of the world’s population’. Jamison became involved in Danish centres of alternative energy and ‘ecological agriculture’. And of course he went to the ‘free town’ of Christiana in Copenhagen. To fulfil the theoretical needs, Jamison read the works of Marx about political economy, Naess on deep ecology, Bookchin on social ecology and many others besides.
Certainly, many first generation STS scholars will recognize at least parts of his experiences, ambitions and thoughts. At least, I do. For Jamison the fascinating and stimulating question was, ‘can the gap between thinking and practising, between theoretizing about and living in the alternative ecological society, ever be successfully bridged?’
The introduction of the book intrigues not just because of Jamison’s personal aims and analyses. Here we also find the social context of the development of Jamison’s central concepts such as green knowledge. An STS scholar once suggested that all scientists themselves should describe their social context; they should write a biography including a description of the circumstances surrounding their scientific work. This would make it much easier to find and interpret the social and psychological factors at work during their scientific discoveries. This also holds for STS-ers. Jamison follows this advice, consciously or unconsciously.
In the first ‘real’ chapter of his book Jamison tries to elucidate the meaning of green(ing), a central but at the same time not very clear term. The term green, originally coined by different social and political movements, has gradually been adopted by governments and industries, resulting in different meanings and practices. According to Jamison, two main green pathways towards sustainability exist: the original oppositional and critical one, initiated and partly practiced by environmentalists, and the established one, institutionalised in governmental institutions and green businesses. This dichotomy has to be ‘bridged’ somehow, Jamison says, by developing a new ‘emerging kind of greening, being part of a larger cultural transformation’.
Jamison describes the role of social movements in this process of green knowledge in the following chapter. Probably this chapter appeals most to STS-scholars. Jamison claims that the environmental movement, like other social movements, has provided a seedbed for the articulation of utopian ‘knowledge interests’. They developed a so-called cognitive praxis, a combination of organisation, technology and cosmology which provides a source of collective identity for the members of the environmental movement. Then the ‘knowledge interests’ have been translated into more socially accepted forms of knowledge-making, for instance within academic and industrial contexts. Jamison’s recent examples are women’s studies, environmental studies, new types of technology, and more generally, a transdiciplinary mode of knowledge production. However, when the cognitive praxis of the environmental movement was transformed into routines in industry and administration it was, in fact, broken.
In the third chapter Jamison analyses the development of the environmental movement more in detail. After the three stages of institutionalisation — ‘awakening’ (pre-1968), ‘organisation and articulation’ (1969-1974) and ‘politization’ (1975-1979) — he distinguishes the stages of differentiation (1980-1986), internationalisation (1987-1993), and integration (1994- ). Jamison stresses the processes of differentiation and even fragmentation of the environmental movement, for instance in ’think-tanks’, radical activism, green parties, single-issue organisations and so on. Because of this, interaction between university scientists became more problematic, Jamison argues. Eventually, in the 1980s, the cognitive praxis of the environmental movement disintegrated as a result of this differentiation. However, the tendency of globalisation in the following decade resulted in a new kind of unification within the environmental movement, being the starting point for new coalitions with parts of the establishment.
Despite tendencies of globalisation and unification, Jamison observes clear differences between several nations such as Denmark, the Netherlands and the USA. This is the theme of the fourth chapter. For instance, styles of policy-making differ inside and outside the formal policy institutions. Also national mentalities vary. Both aspects have consequences for the influence of environmental movements. Jamison thinks that the consensus-mode of decision-making and the stronger civic traditions in both Denmark and the Netherlands have led to a greater public acceptance of sustainable development practices in these countries.
Moreover, in the 1980s and 1990s, industry also started a process of greening. This development was intellectually inspired by academics, rooted in the environmental movement, who developed concepts such as Technology Assessment and Life Cycle Analyses. These intellectuals, among them many Dutch STS scholars and environmental scientists, founded the so-called Greening of Industry Network, which was very important as a think tank and means of communication. Some of these intellectuals linked very different contexts such as industry, several academic disciplines and practises, environmental movements, and politics. They organized interactions between the dominant ‘imperialistic’ culture and the alternative ‘ecological’ or ‘arcadian’ culture. And that was not an easy job. In other chapters of the book Jamison also pays attention to these networking intellectuals. In his earlier work he already stressed the importance of such movement intellectuals.
Jamison argues that building bridges is a key element in the greening of society. In the first place, bridges between the various elements of the environmental movement such as activists, think-tanks, and professional organisations. In this way the creation of a real ‘environmentally friendly society’ would be possible. Here we recognize the young activist Jamison, who is still looking for an ecological society. Sometimes Jamison seems to say that bridges between all elements of society are needed, including the capitalists, industrialists and conservative politicians. Then the pragmatic analyst Jamison seems to speak, maybe a bit influenced by neo-corporatism. Jamison is fully aware of this and other dilemmas but is – of course – not able to solve them. And Jamison is not quite sure how successful the environmental movement has been and will be.
So, people who expected to find a final answer to the questions of how to green knowledge or society will be disappointed somewhat after reading this book. Jamison deals with many aspects of a sustainable or ecological society: the dynamics of social movements, national policy styles, innovation strategies, the significance of experts or intellectuals and so on. Of course the 200 pages of the book are not sufficient to go into detail. However, I had hoped to find a more thorough analysis of technological innovation and the role of ideology. Furthermore, I consider the description of processes of differentiation and unification in the development of the environmental movement too schematic. And some parts of the book seem to me less relevant such as the description of nineteenth-century social movements or Worster’s classification of environmental traditions.
Yet, the book is interesting and inspiring, especially for those who want to get a first impression of the history, experiences, problems and possibilities of the greening the society and for those who like to reflect on their role as movement intellectual.
Henny J. van der Windt is Lecturer in Science & Society, Biologisch Centrum, University of Groningen (the Netherlands).
Review of Armin Grunwald, Technikfolgenabschätzung – eine Einführung, Berlin: edition sigma, 2002, 318 pp.
By and large the discussion on Technology Assessment (TA) has moved out of academia in recent years and mainly resides in parliamentary offices for technology assessment and other specialised institutions. From an STS perspective the emphasis shifted several years ago from impact assessment to design, social shaping and the ‘management of technology in society.’ TA has been extended to active ‘change management’ within Constructive Technology Assessment; it has developed concepts such as Strategic Niche Management, or focused on the transition of broader socio-technical regimes. With his introductory book on TA, Armin Grundwald impressively presents TA concepts, methods and institutions within broader social and political contexts and research fields such as science and technology studies. In doing so Grunwald not only gives a refreshing overview of technology assessment and its background, but also manages to point out how the dilemmas and tensions encountered in TA could still be a provocation and a fruitful source for further research in STS.
The book consists of four main parts. Part one presents the present problems and challenges emanating from the force field of technology and society and TA’s prospects for dealing with these problems. The second part describes the practical implementation of technology assessment (mainly its concepts and institutions). The third deals with methodological challenges and has a typology of TA methods. Finally there is a contextualisation of TA that addresses its critique (voiced from different perspectives), its relation to other research disciplines and its embedding in the discourse of sustainability. As a concise overview and critical discussion of TA topics, the book hardly has a counterpart in the German-speaking arena (and probably internationally), where comprehensive volumes on TA methods and instruments and specific articles in academic journals dominate.
Grunwald embeds TA in the setting of several current societal challenges. A classic issue concerns the ‘unintended side effects’ of technological progress. While an unreflective trust in technology is not possible any more, policy, industry and science have to face new challenges for decision-making and governance in a context of uncertainty. Moreover, decisions on technology in a pluralist society are often characterised by conflict and controversy rather than consensus, and thereby raise questions of legitimation. A further challenge is the management of technical change in society. Grunwald warns of the naïve stance in the manageability of technology. Tendencies towards self-referential system dynamics or economic ‘determinants’ of technical change can hardly be denied. In this context one also has to raise the question of the capacity of policy to significantly influence technological change. The current situation is the ‘expert dilemma,’ where different experts arrive at contradictory results. Value-free expert advice is questioned. Traditional concepts such as TA as scientific policy advice also have their limitations.
A critique of TA’s limitations, such as its focus on the impacts of technology on society, has pushed the concept of TA forward. As Grunwald claims, the perspective on design and change management has been strengthened. Social, cultural and political contexts of technologies have been better integrated. Closer links with ethical questions of technology and with research on the social shaping of technology have been established. Consequently Grunwald presents a broad basic concept of TA:
The preparation and science-based support of political decisions with respect to technical change.
Early warning of technology-induced dangers and at the same time identification of use potentials of technologies.
A means of dealing with technology-related conflicts through mediation, participatory procedures and ‘socially friendly design’ of technology.
Improvement of social learning processes in managing technical change and appropriating technologies.
After providing some background to these general problems, concepts and theories, the book then gives an overview of different TA approaches – the classic expert-oriented scientific policy consulting approach, participative approaches to technology assessment (which alone cover a broad range of instruments and methods), constructive technology assessment and others. An interesting part is the discussion of different types of problems participative TA may face - from the question of non-participants and representativity to questions of power, procedural challenges and the integration of participative procedures into the policy-making process.
In general, an outstanding quality of this book is how it mixes a systematic overview of TA and information on various approaches, institutions and instruments, and still retains a critical and reflective stance. TA’s limitations and dilemmas are discussed. TA also is embedded in current socio-economic contexts without losing sight of the pragmatic requirements of policy consulting. The book constantly shifts from ‘instrumental’ TA topics, such as the design of TA projects and methodological approaches, to a meta-level, inquiring into methodological challenges and problems (e.g., prognosis, foresight, valuation, design options) and relating TA with broader questions and demands such as sustainable development, the ‘rational’ management of technical change or the democratisation of technology.
Now that more than a hundred thousand people have been killed by a real tsunami, it can only be hoped that many of the two million printed copies of Michael Crichton’s outlandish State of Fear - which tells of environmental terrorists trying to set off a tsunami in order to convince people about the seriousness of global warming - will stay unsold.
Michael Crichton is probably best known for Jurassic Park where he brought dinosaurs to life through the wonders of genetic engineering and let them destroy everything in their paths for several hundred pages – and then, of course, on film. More recently, in Prey, according to the reviews on the internet, he let loose a swarm of nanotechnological monsters to do their dirty work and create some ghastly effects that should work well on film. In other words, Michael Crichton has made his living scaring people, and no doubt a good living it has been.
In State of Fear, which came out in December, he is out to scare his readers about the dangerous environmental activists lurking in their midst. He tells us that he did three years of research, and was especially impressed and influenced by Bjørn Lomborg’s book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, which came out in 2001. Indeed State of Fear is a kind of Hollywood version of Lomborg’s book. It’s written much like a film script, and you can almost picture Keanu Reeves and Britney Spears in the leading roles, saving the world from the evil environmental movement and its endless worrying about global warming.
I had never tried to read one of Crichton’s books before, and I must say that I found it pretty hard going. The characters are so unreal – every woman is extremely beautiful and sexy and the hero has a kind of superhuman intelligence, and knows everything about everything, from weapons to the weather. Even though he is an engineer he knows more about the environment than all of the pitiful, ignorant activists who appear throughout the book.
Crichton has been inspired by Lomborg, but even Lomborg could never condone the kinds of things that Crichton has his characters do. Lomborg and the other authors who are referred to in State of Fear – for this is a novel with a mission, and includes an annotated bibliography – are merely critical of the environmental movement and its often exaggerated claims. For Crichton, however, criticism is not enough if you are to get people really scared. Only true hate will do.
And so we have a novel in which environmental activists are depicted as a bunch of crazy terrorists who are planning to create a tsunami, to show what global warming can do. The book starts with one of the activists, an incredibly beautiful woman, who is half Vietnamese (is there a message there?), seducing an American graduate student doing oceanographic research in France. Since he knows about tsunamis and has access to computer files that can be useful for the environmental terrorists in their evil doing, she drugs him and casts him into the Seine. And from then on, as they say in Hollywood, the plot thickens.
With the mindless violence that has made him rich and famous, Crichton takes us to Antarctica and Canada and the south Pacific, and Hollywood itself, to concoct a tale of terror that is as gruesome as it is absurd. In one scene the hero and another incredibly beautiful woman are locked into a room where airplane parts are tested against lightning attacks, and after being bombarded for awhile and being set afire, they miraculously escape with their lives. In another episode, a fake graduate student, who is one of the environmental terrorists, leads two of the central characters into a trap in Antarctica where they fall through the ice and are literally hanging by a rope until they are miraculously saved by a robot. In Crichton’s world, the machines are the good guys. They represent progress, you see.
In order to make his points even more strongly than he does in his novel, Crichton includes an author’s message and two appendices, in which he tells his readers of the dangers of the environmental movement. Crichton claims that nobody – especially not environmental scientists - knows enough about global warming to warrant trying to do anything about it. Like Lomborg, he says that there is too much disagreement among the experts, and so it is best not to take any action since it is so expensive. Things will take care of themselves. As he puts it, “I suspect the people of 2100 will be much richer than we are, consume more energy, have a smaller global population, and enjoy more wilderness than we have today. I don’t think we have to worry about them.”
For Crichton, as for Lomborg, so long as there is disagreement among the experts, we should go on with our business. We shouldn’t change our ways until there is absolute scientific proof about what is causing global warming. But there can never be such scientific proof. Science doesn’t work that way. Science always involves interpretation, which, in turn, always requires theories that are inevitably imprecise and open to doubt. Theories such as global warming, and ideas such as sustainable development and the precautionary principle, are, for both Lomborg and Crichton, not scientific enough to serve as the basis for policy decisions.
In one particularly absurd formulation in his author’s message Crichton writes that the “’precautionary principle’, properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory. The precautionary principle therefore cannot be spoken of in terms that are too harsh.” I sort of get what he means; namely that if we are to be cautious then we need to be cautious about being cautious.
What he really means, however – and in this respect he is very much following the teachings of Bjørn Lomborg - is that we don’t need to be cautious at all, since caution holds back progress. But especially after what has happened in the Indian Ocean and the surrounding countries, it seems to me that it is more important than ever that we make our decisions as both individuals and collectively on the basis of the precautionary principle.
A report on the international workshop, 30th June 2004, Saïd Business School, University of Oxford
Inspired by our own unusual location as researchers working under the ‘STS’ label in a business school, we organised this workshop to instigate discussion about the possible implications of the move of STS into ‘new domains’ such as business and management, law and medicine. In an attempt to set the tone for this discussion, we identified four areas for interrogation. These concerned questions about:
- New research subject matter. Are organisations to be approached in the same way as scientific laboratories? Can organisations or business activities be approached as forms of technology?
- New research audiences. Do moves to new locations invoke transformations and appropriations of STS by new audiences or simply provide the ‘usual suspects’ with new offices and resources?
- Shifts toward (practical) application/integration into new contexts. What issues are raised by the variety of attempts to integrate STS into forms of organisational activity? Under what conditions is STS translated into practical action?
- The possibility of sustaining radicalism under new conditions that may demand utility in different ways. To what extent and in what ways is STS proving useful? Do new locations for STS prompt new questions about its utility and evaluation? Can the provocation (traditionally) associated with STS be sustained as it is adopted in new contexts and by new audiences?
The workshop
Far in excess of our original expectations, the workshop brought together some 60 participants, some travelling from as far afield as Tasmania, South Africa, California and Sweden. The day of the workshop was organised around brief presentations of seven precirculated papers, with solicited commentaries by a further eight authors, and a concluding wrap up session.
Unsurprisingly, given the diverse and dynamic group of speakers, the debates that ensued ranged wider than the questions set out above. Instead of going through the substantive contribution of each presenter in order - all papers and a number of commentaries can be accessed via the conference website: http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/html/facultyconferencessts_workshop.asp - we highlight the four main themes which recurred throughout: definitions of STS; the new domains with which STS is engaging; the nature of this engagement and its effects on STS; and future questions which need to be addressed.
A. Definitions of STS
Michael Guggenheim suggested that if STS were to give up its traditional focus on science (and technology), this would amount to suicide: by definition, according to Guggenheim, Science and Technology Studies needs to be about science and technology. Mike Lynch and Nigel Thrift, however, pointed to the difficulty of conceiving of science/technology and business/law as separate domains: Lynch argued that conceptions of science play an important part in contemporary legal and business practices, and Thrift reminded us that science these days is often ‘big business’. This applies not only to commercial aspects of laboratory science, such as patenting, intellectual property and science entrepreneurship, but also to the management and marketing of institutions (such as the University of Oxford…). Rob Evans suggested that it is not so much the substantive topics chosen by STS researchers which define the field, but the accumulated knowledge about expertise. Max Travers offered yet another characterisation. According to him, STS distinguishes itself by its ability to be offensive, awkward and difficult. John Law suggested thinking of STS as a ‘set of sensibilities’ – for example to materiality, to process and to specificity. Ros Gill provided an elegant (discourse) analysis of the varied meanings and uses of STS, reminding us that definitions of STS are themselves highly contingent. The general characterisation of STS as offering sensibilities for the treatment of a very wide range of phenomena, rather than for example comprising a specific set of methods and techniques, appeared to meet the approval of many workshop participants.
B. The new domains with which STS is engaging
Some participants questioned the extent to which the domains with which STS is now engaging are “new” to STS. There was the suggestion that some aspects of STS, not represented at the workshop, already had a well developed agenda for engagement with a wide variety of areas, for example science and technology policy (Andy Stirling). Certainly the point made by several presenters was that we need close attention to the possible effects of our preconceptions about these domains, business and management in particular. One of these preconceptions, mentioned by Noortje Marres, is the idea that business is somehow ‘confined’ to commercial companies and institutions like business schools (MBA programmes), as if it were possible to stand outside of business and study it as a bounded domain. Another is the preconception that studying business with an STS framework might be a dangerous thing to do, because there is a sense in which business is in itself ‘mean’ (Helgesson and Kjellberg) – and oppressors should not be offered new ways of making their ‘prisons’ even more effective. Janet Low suggested that even domains as apparently different as the law and medicine should be seen as sharing a common concern with processes of social ordering and with the transparency of these processes. STS sensibilities need to be brought to bear so as better to understand the nature of intervention and the role of the intervener. Paolo Quattrone also cautioned against thinking of our target domains as having grown by “appropriation” since this leads us to overlook the richness, chaotic and multifaceted processes of continuous translation involved in the emergence of “business” and “business studies”.
C. The nature of engagement and its effects on STS
Our ideas about what STS is and about the new domains with which we are engaging, have implications for the nature of that engagement. For “effective” engagement, does STS now have to get (more) serious (“mean business”), should it determinedly attempt to configure its new users, or should we accept that STS may become transformed (even beyond recognition?) in the process? Has something “gotta give”?
One axis of difference that emerged in the course of discussion was the question of whether STS should mean business by becoming more like ‘business’ (broadly conceived) or by offering an explicitly distinctive approach to that of business. Mike Power raised the question of whether STS might itself get re-formulated as part of these processes. The untested assumption has been that STS might change business, rather than the other way around.
Marc Berg asserted that he had no problem ‘betraying’ STS – in particular its deconstructive habits – in order to learn something really new. In the work of Helgesson and Kjellberg it seemed that long-held business assumptions could be questioned, re-directed or troubled by a thorough application of STS sensibilities. Paolo Quattrone drew on his experience of teaching MBA students in suggesting that for STS to mean business for business students, it needs to be able to instil some kind of hope (the hope of solving a problem, of seeing things differently, of ‘getting things done’).
On several occasions, participants referred to Simon Cole’s experience as an expert witness, a case during which sometimes STS as an academic field was put on trial. Richard Ericsson suggested that Cole is an expert on the grounds of having proceeded through various legal mechanisms. However, Ericsson also highlighted the dangers of expectation and the problems associated with assuming that, for example, legal rulings have single, definitive effects. Even STS experts in name and qualification might not then expect to have that expertise read and understood in the same way in each area in which they work. Mike Lynch wondered if it is a sign of success when STS gets appropriated, but yet redefined beyond recognition to its practitioners, in new domains such as the courtroom. He cited the example of “the findings” of Laboratory Life being used by a judge to support the argument that “scientists do a lot of photocopying”! He argued that the success and credibility of STS will most likely remain contingent and cannot be predicated on the discipline or knowledge within the discipline. In this sense, STS researchers as well as STS expertise have a radical mutability. What counts as qualified expertise, to whom and when, is likely to be the subject of frequent re-negotiation. Simon Cole added that the trajectory of STS intervention as a whole is important: that it is worthwhile trying to understand the process whereby an expert (STS) witness obtains official recognition in the courtroom.
Integration into new domains was not in all respects considered desirable. Contrary to popular notions of ‘business’ associated with speed and engagement, Mike Lynch argued in favour of slowness as a virtue and disengagement as a necessity. He particularly stressed the idea of, and need for, time-out from full engagement in order to foster reflection and notions of strange-ness. These ideas were also taken up by Thrift who argued in favour of the need to escape audit and the erosion of time introduced by constant pressures to perform and measure performance.
D. New questions?
Steve Woolgar and Paul Wouters suggested that we view the shift to new domains as the source of new research questions for STS. Are we witnessing a shift away from considering (science as an) epistemic practice, such that the focus is now more on social than on epistemological accountability? (Steve Woolgar). When engaging with business(es), is it now more appropriate to ask ‘what counts as value?’ rather than ‘what counts as knowledge?’ (Paul Wouters). In any event, it is clearly important to document and analyse our varied specific experiences as we become involved in new (business) settings and contexts.
Steve Brown quoted Bergson to make the point that it is more difficult to articulate a good problem than to present a solution. In this light, it is encouraging that the workshop yielded more questions than it answered! Perhaps the questions raised by Mike Lynch offer an apt summary of the main thrust of the discussion: is it helpful to think about the move to business, law and so on, as a new ‘diffusion’ phase of STS? Are we happy to construct STS as something that is intact and can be moved? And if so, what moves, how does it move, and under what circumstances might such movement prove “useful”?
Encouraged by the support and interest from many in the STS community and beyond we have decided to organise a follow-up meeting - Does STS Mean Business? part 2, which is planned for June 2005. For more information, see our website http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/html/facultyconferencessts_workshop.asp.
or contact the organisers: steve.woolgar@sbs.ox.ac.uk, daniel.neyland@sbs.ox.ac.uk, elena.simakova@sbs.ox.ac.uk, c.coopmans@imperial.ac.uk.
Report of a meeting (on 29 October 2004) with representatives of European Research Associations in Brussels.
Directorate K (social sciences and humanities) of the European Commission had invited between 15 and 20 international research associations on the areas of political science, archaeology (the only humanities’ association present), sociology, education, economic policy, and science and technology studies (EASST). The main topic was Framework Programme 7 (FP7), which is currently being developed. Representatives of ten associations participated in the meeting (the strike of public transport in Brussels that day may have caused some problems for other participants). The idea behind the meeting was to discuss directions for EU-policy and research in the social sciences and humanities. We were told that it was the first time that these research associations met with the EU Directorate.
The discussion mainly focused on issues of language and culture. Many argued that the new Framework Directive should pay more attention to issues around language and culture when new research programmes are funded. Some expressed that, in their eyes, research programmes funded by the EU should allocate specific time for researchers to be able to ‘translate’ issues and concepts from one language and cultural context into another. Often the lack of time for these ‘translations’ leads to misunderstandings between the different participants in a research programme. In relation to this, some argued for possibilities to write the final reports in different languages than English; this would encourage for instance Southern member states to join EU projects. The current requirement to write in English would not encourage the best researchers to apply for funding, but the ones that are competent in English. The European Commission could then set money aside to translate these reports into English. Although the issue is important and perhaps especially relevant for the non-northern European countries, I was a little disappointed that this was the focus of the discussion. Although these issues had to be brought under attention of the EU (something that probably has been done many times before), they are well-known and I had hoped that this diverse group of participants could come up with more interesting and original topics for discussion. Fortunately this is exactly what happened after lunch.
In the afternoon the associations were asked to put forward those issues they regarded as important for Europe and to which the association (and members of the association) could contribute. The discussion focused on a number of questions: what can social sciences do for the world; what expectations do research associations have of the European Research Area; what do the different field regard as challenges for ‘Europe’ to which they can contribute; what are the most interesting instruments to achieve this; and what are common interests between the research associations and the framework? Firstly, a number of tasks for the European Commission (the EC) were identified. It was mentioned that the EC should try to do something about commercial publishers who make academic journals very expensive and sometimes require a whole package to be purchased rather than a single journal. Another task for the EC would be to develop European quality control standards for European academic research, in which different languages should be included to ensure that no important work is lost because it was not written in English. At the same time, these standards should not lead to a reduction in the variety of ways to do research. Someone mentioned that the research associations themselves could be a place where such quality control standards can be developed. A third task for the EC would be to make sure that also countries that do not have as many resources as countries in the Northwest of Europe can participate in research programmes and organise activities. Research associations themselves should (continue to) actively include Southern and Eastern members. The fourth and last task mentioned was to encourage young researchers to move around Europe and create opportunities for them in Europe to encourage them to stay here rather than moving to the US.
Secondly, a number of research areas in/for the social sciences were identified which were regarded as relevant for ‘Europe’. Amongst these were learning, knowledge economy, ageing, migration, human rights, European-South relations, conflict prevention and management, and social/political forecasting (and the developments of instruments to do this). Mainly on basis of the titles of the two previous EASST conferences I added issues around trust, accountability, legitimacy, and governance in relation to science and technology. I gave examples of recent breakdowns of trust (BSE, foot and mouth disease, MMR) and argued that these issues are important for areas like genomics, nanotechnology, and information technology as well. I mentioned that, in this light, democratising of science and technology is a relevant issue. Like some issues mentioned by others, this would raise questions about expertise, ‘the public’, and citizenship. I also added that (members of) EASST could contribute to questions that address knowledge transfer (from both social and natural sciences) and technology transfer which will be important in relation to the new member states. Many, including me, argued that research that is relevant for European policy should go hand in hand with methodological developments; these are not and do not have to be separate. If we want to compare case studies in several countries we have to develop a way to do this.
Thirdly, we discussed instruments for developing good research. Many agreed that there is a need for long term research programmes so that long term developments can be taken into account. Some added that more comparative studies should be done (in which time and money should be available for ‘translation’ issues as mentioned above). Shared databases, especially with the new member states, were regarded as important instruments for research that should be (further) developed. Some suggested that the EC should start thinking about ‘European teaching’ in addition to country-specific teaching. Instruments to keep good researchers interested and provide them with opportunities were also discussed. A need for institutional fellowships was expressed and a need to develop career paths for young researchers. We all agreed that Marie Curie postdoc fellowships are a good initiative, but that there have to be opportunities in Europe for these researchers after their postdoc position has ended.
Lastly, a number of problems and issues around European research projects were raised. One discussion centered around the consultation/evaluation of research proposals/projects. For instance, in the field of economics many research associations exist that focus on different fields. The question then is: who is represented as evaluator? Many argued that the process of how evaluators are chosen should be more transparent, since, in their eyes, often unrepresentative or even wrong choices had been made. It was suggested that research associations and forums like the one we attended could assist in the making of these choices. Another discussion focused on the criteria for the researchers in a project: a certain number of nationalities, disciplines, and genders (just two so far…) is required, but may not always benefit the quality of the research. The choice of researchers should be quality-based rather than based on the different criteria. The centres of excellence were criticised, since not everyone thinks they work. In some areas, as the economists present at the meeting stated, researchers prefer to stay clear from them, a sign that the EC may have to look into the concept of centres of excellence. A fourth widely shared comment was the amount of work it takes to apply for funding. Many argued that researchers are interested in science rather than in filling in forms. In relation to this, they raised the problem that the researchers who are most likely to get funding, have very little time to actually do the research. Suggested was a budget in a research project that would cover this sort of work and a facilitation of the research procedures. The fifth point raised related to young scholars. It was argued that many good researchers do not benefit from the current (for instance Marie Curie) system, if they are not supported by a (well-known) supervisor. These scholars should also be able to receive a grant without support of a supervisor. I added that, like other EC funding, the Marie Curie postdoc fellowship programme is quite slow in deciding who will be funded. This causes problems for people who are finishing their PhD and are looking for a job: they cannot sit around for six months to find out whether they have been accepted (I considered applying myself). The very last point raised was that research is too often developed top-down instead of bottom-up, but I think that this meeting was perhaps a first step in changing this a little bit.
At the end of the meeting, we were given the first issue of a newsletter on ‘EU Research in Social Sciences and Humanities’ to which contributions are invited. See http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/social-sciences/indexen.html for more information. The European Commission is also currently undertaking a wide-ranging consultation of key stakeholders of European Research Policy. The research community is invited to provide their views on what they consider to be the key research challenges in the future for the social sciences and humanities. For more information, see http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/future/ssh/indexen.html. At the end of 2005 a conference will be organised by DG Research on the future of social sciences and humanities and they would like the research associations to be present there. These are spaces where research programmes can be developed bottom-up; very important spaces in my eyes.
All participants agreed that this was a useful forum both for the EC and for research associations to exchange ideas about best practice and other issues. The EC will try to arrange a follow up meeting in which a larger number of associations will be present. The EC people who attended the meeting mentioned that, if nothing else, they can at least try to create a space for social dialogue in Europe. The meeting provided me with a large number of ideas that EASST can develop and I think it is important for EASST and for individual STS scholars to create such spaces and participate in them. EASST now has a place as an association where it can exchange ideas with other research associations and where it can participate in discussions on the future of social science (both topically and financially).
The “TA Network” was founded in Berlin on 24 November 2004. It is an alliance of scientists, experts and practitioners in the broad field of technology assessment. Both practical and academic in its orientation, the network provides advice to a variety of audiences in government, industry and society at large. About 80 researchers and practitioners took part in the inaugural meeting. The following is based on the suggestions for the network’s “profile,” made during the discussions at its founding and at the network’s first conference, “Technology in a fragile world” (Technik in einer fragilen Welt).
The Background to Technology Assessment
Science, technology and innovation are major drivers of societal change and essential for welfare, security, health and quality of life. At the same time, new challenges are arising for government, industry and the public as a result of scientific and technological progress and related socio-economic developments. Among these are the demands of sustainable development, the acceleration of innovation in many areas, the need for competitiveness of industry and the education system, the ethically relevant challenges to traditional human images and societal designs, issues of globalisation, upheavals in private and working life, new mechanisms of public opinion formation and decision making, new forms of societal regulation (governance) as well as new paths in the production and distribution of knowledge.
The task of TA is to research the preconditions and impacts of technology by means of a prospective analysis of the opportunities and risks of technology. TA evaluates the preconditions and impacts of technology by scientific means, employing transparent criteria, and developing problem solutions to advise government, industry and the general public. It supports public opinion formation and decision-making processes by providing an information base as well as by looking into the underlying normative orientations. It takes into account that knowledge and values cannot always be strictly separated in issues concerned with shaping the future; coping with a lack of knowledge and uncertainty is a major challenge. Since research and consultancy are frequently combined with each other, it is important to communicate the research results in a manner optimised for the addressee.
Depending on the context of the case, the ways and means by which these tasks are addressed differ widely. The relevant factors concerned here are the specific TA issue, the addressee, the institutional constellation, the pertinent reference to science and technology, the societal conflict situation, the actors and forms of participation, as well as the costs of change. Such a dependence on context leads to institutional, conceptual and methodological diversity.
The TA Network
The “TA Network” is an alliance of scientists, experts and practitioners. This circle is comprised of the (partly overlapping) areas of technology assessment, practical ethics, systems analysis, risk research, technology design for sustainable development, innovation analysis, institutional and technology analysis, and innovation and futures research. The academic disciplines involved are the natural sciences, technology, social and economic sciences, political and legal science as well as philosophy. The members of the network represent the various strands of TA and cover the broad spectrum between theory and practice, between research and advisement, and between the various scientific disciplines. They view such a variety as an opportunity to combine competence and experience, and to contribute to the optimal utilisation of existing resources.
Goals and tasks
The “TA Network” has been created against the backdrop of inadequate cooperation between TA-allied disciplines in the past. The goals and tasks of the network are - Improving communication and of information exchange within the TA community, starting in the German-speaking world with the option of extension beyond this area. - Identifying new topics and advisory tasks - Initiating and executing self-defined research projects - Developing further TA concepts and methods - Defining quality criteria for TA and approaches to internal quality assurance - Forming a more visible “TA community,” consisting of the research and consultancy activities mentioned above - Fostering young scientists - Improving the position of TA in science and society - Developing systematic and effective methods for implementation and societal use of TA research results.
Activities
In order to achieve these goals, the “TA Network” will undertake (initially) the following practical steps: - Start an e-mail list and an internet portal with links to the participating institutions. Create a news and events page using existing opportunities (e.g. the web sites of the TA-Net NRW or of ITAS). - Issue regular reports on the activities of the “TA Network” in the ITAS periodical, “Technology Assessment: Theory and Practice” (Technikfolgenabschätzung: Theorie und Praxis). - Organise workshops and conferences. - Organise an annual network meeting in connection with workshops or conferences of the “TA Network.” - Set up thematic working groups.
The TA Network’s first conference took place on 24-26 November 2004 under the heading of “Technology in a fragile world: The role of technology assessment,” and the conference reports are to be found in the “TAB-Brief” 2/2004 and in “Technikfolgenabschätzung. Theorie und Praxis” 3/2004, among other places. A book with the conference contributions is being prepared for the ITAS series “Society – Technology – Environment” (Gesellschaft – Technik – Umwelt), published by Edition Sigma.
Organisation
The network thrives on the initiative of its members. In order to encourage initiatives, there is need for a minimum of infrastructure and responsibilities. A supporting data processing infrastructure will soon be available. A working group for this task has already met. In due course elements of a communications infrastructure might be added, such as discussion forums on certain topics (e.g. in the context of specific working groups of the network) or platforms for the exchange of information. Coordination will be undertaken by a small team that has agreed to take on the task for the next two years. The group of founding members of the “TA Network” will act as a steering group and provide suggestions.
Contact and registration
Contact point for the coordination team:
Dr. Michael Decker
Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe
Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und Systemanalyse (ITAS)
Postfach 3640
76021 Karlsruhe
Germany
Tel: +49(0)7247/82-3007 or -2501 (Secretariat)
Fax: +49(0)7247/82-4806
E-Mail: NetzwerkTA@itas.fzk.de