Compară metode
Examinează metodele selectate una lângă alta; rândurile care diferă sunt evidențiate.
| Participatory Technology Assessment× | Responsible Research and Innovation Assessment× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domeniu | Science Technology Studies | Science Technology Studies |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Anul apariției≠ | 1995 | 2013 |
| Autorul original≠ | Danish Board of Technology tradition; Simon Joss, John Durant, Leonhard Hennen | Jack Stilgoe, Richard Owen, Phil Macnaghten |
| Tip≠ | Deliberative public-participation process | Normative governance and reflexive-assessment process |
| Sursa seminală≠ | Joss, S., & Durant, J. (Eds.). (1995). Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. Science Museum. ISBN: 9780901805874 | Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568-1580. DOI ↗ |
| Denumiri alternative | pTA, Public technology assessment, Citizen technology assessment | RRI assessment, Responsible innovation framework, AIRR assessment |
| Înrudite | 4 | 4 |
| Rezumat≠ | Participatory technology assessment (pTA) involves lay citizens and stakeholders—not only experts—in assessing the social, ethical, and political dimensions of technologies. Through structured deliberative formats such as consensus conferences, citizens' juries, and scenario workshops, ordinary people are informed, allowed to question experts, and helped to form and articulate a considered collective view, which is then fed into public and policy debate. pTA democratises technology assessment, treating the public not as a problem to be managed but as a legitimate voice in technological choices. | Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) assessment is an approach to governing science and innovation that asks not only whether a technology works but whether it is desirable, and seeks to align research and innovation with the values, needs, and expectations of society. The influential Stilgoe-Owen-Macnaghten framework operationalises this through four dimensions—anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion, and responsiveness (AIRR)—that are built into the innovation process so that direction and purpose, not just risk and product, become objects of deliberate care. |
| ScholarGateSet de date ↗ |
|
|