Controversies, especially those that surround "early warnings" about impacts of a
technology or a large project, may be welcomed as an informal way of technology
assessment. This is not always recognized, because of ideals of consensus and context-free
rationality. An alternative, rhetorical perspective is presented on controversies and their
sociocognitive dynamics, in which interests and actor-strategies play an integral role
besides arguments and evidence. Because of such interactions, articulation of insights and
positions occurs, that is, social learning. Improvement of social learning has to take the
sociocognitive dynamics into account. Absolute standards and methods are impossible,
but one can take robustness of views as a realistic goal.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, R., R. Perucci, D. Schendel, and L. Trachtman (1980) Divided Loyalties: Whistle-Blowing at BARTWest Lafayette, IN: Purdue Univ. Press .
2.
Ash, S.M. and C.U. Lowe (1984) "The consensus development program."Knowledge5: 369-385.
3.
BECKER, H. A. and A. G. PORTER [eds.] (1986) Impact Assessment Today.Utrecht: Van Arkel.
4.
Bloor, D. (1976) Knowledge and Social ImageryLondon: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
5.
Bowman, J.S. (1983) "Whistle blowing: literature and resources material."Public Administration Rev. (May-June): 271-276.
6.
CALLON, M., J. LAW, and A. RIP [eds.] (1986) Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. Sociology of Science in the Real World.London: Macmillan.
7.
Campbell, D.T. (1979) "A tribal model of the social system vehicle carrying scientific knowledge."Knowledge1: 181-201.
8.
Casper, B.M. and P.D. Wellstone (1981) Powerline: The First Battle of America's Energy WarAmherst: Univ. of Massachusetts Press.
9.
Collingridge, D. (1980) The Social Control of TechnologyLondon: Frances Pinter.
10.
Collins, H.G. (1981) "Stages in the empirical programme of relativism."Social Studies of Science11: 3-10.
11.
De Man, R. and W. Van Dieren (1985) Detergents, Chemical Household Products and the Chemical Debate in GermanyAmsterdam: Instituut voor Milieu-en Systeemanalyse.
12.
Dotto, L. and H. Schiff (1978) The Ozone WarGarden City, NY . Doubleday.
13.
Edge, D. (1985) "Is Science Inhuman?"Metascience3: 6-19.
14.
Gilbert, G.N. and M.J. Mulkay (1984) Opening Pandora's Box. A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' DiscourseCambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
15.
Hesse, M. (1974) The Structure of Scientific InferenceLondon: Macmillan.
16.
Hirsch, H. and H. Nowotny (1977) "Information and Opposition in Austrian Nuclear Energy Policy."Minerva15 (Autumn/ Winter): 316-334.
17.
Latour, B. and S. Woolgar (1979) Laboratory Life. The Social Construction of Scientific FactBeverly Hills, CA: Sage.
18.
Law, J. and B. Barnes (1976) "Areas of ignorance in normal science: a note on Mulkay's three models of scientific development."Soc. Rev.24: 115-124.
19.
Law, J. and P. Lodge (1984) Science for Social ScientistsLondon: Macmillan.
20.
Levine, A.G. (1982) Love Canal: Science, Politics, and PeopleLexington, MA: Lexington Books.
21.
Lynch, M.E. (1982) "Technical work and critical inquiry: investigations in a scientific laboratory."Social Studies of Science12: 499-533.
22.
Mazur, A. (1981) The Dynamics of Technical ControversyWashington, DC: Communications Press.
23.
McCrea, F.B. and G.E. Markle (1984) "The estrogen replacement controversy in the USA and UK: different answers to the same question?"Social Studies of Science14: 1-26.
24.
McGee, M.C. (1975) "In search of'the people': a rhetorical alternative."Q. J. of Speech61:235-249.
25.
McGee, M.C. (1980) "The 'ideograph': a link between rhetoric and ideology."Q. J. of Speech66: 1-16.
26.
Mcginn, R.E. (1979) "In defense of intangibles: the responsibility-feasibility dilemma in modern technological innovation."Science, Technology and Human Values5 (Fall): 4-10.
27.
Mulkay, M.J. (1979) Science and the Sociology of KnowledgeLondon: Allen & Unwin.
28.
Nelkin, D. (1977) Science Textbook Controversies and the Politics of Equal TimeCambridge: MIT Press .
29.
NELKIN, D. [ed.] (1984) Controversy, Politics of Technical Decisions.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
30.
Nowotny, T. (1979) Kernenergie: Gefahr oder Notwendigkeit. Anatomie eines KonfliktsFrankfurt a/ Main: Suhrkamp.
31.
O'BRIEN, D. M. and D. A. MARCHAND [eds.] (1982) The Politics of Technology Assessment. Institutions, Processes, and Policy Disputes.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
32.
Oecd (1979) Technology on TrialParis: OECD.
33.
Oecd (1983) Assessing the Impacts of Technology on SocietyParis: OECD.
34.
Passmore, J. (1968) Hume's IntentionsLondon: Duckworth.
35.
Petersen, J.C. and D. Farrell (1984) Whistleblowing: Ethical and Legal Issues in Expressing DissentKalamazoo: Western Michigan University.
36.
Petersen, J.C. and G.E. Markle (1981) "Expansion of conflict in cancer controversies," pp. 151-169 in Louis Kriesberg (ed.) Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, Volume 4. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
37.
Rip, A. ( 1983) Comparative Study of Science-Related Controversies: Avoiding Blind SpotsPresented to the 4S Annual Meeting, Blacksburg, VA November 4-6.
38.
Rip, A.forthcoming a) "Social processes of technology assessment," in H. A. Becker and A. L. Porter (1986).
39.
Rip, A.forthcoming b) "Legitimations of science in a changing world," in Theo Bungarten (Hrsg.) Wissenschaftssprache und GesellschaftHamburg: Edition Akademion.
40.
Troyer, R.J. and G.E. Markle (1983) Cigarettes: The Battle over SmokingNew Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press.
41.
Troyer, R.J. and G.E. Markle (1984) "Coffee drinking: an emerging social problem."Social Problems12: 403-416.
42.
Twentieth Century Fund (1984) Science in the Streets. Report of the Task Force on the Communication of Scientific RiskNew York: Priority Press.
43.
Van Dieren, W. and H. Sas (1985) Dutch Policy for Phosphates in DetergentsAmsterdam: Instituut voor Milieu-en Systeemanalyse .
44.
Vlek, C.A.J.forthcoming) "Rise, decline and aftermath of the Dutch 'societal discussion on (nuclear) energy policy' (1981-1983)," in H. A. Becker and A. G. Porter (1986).
45.
Wessel, M.R. (1980) Science and ConscienceNew York : Columbia Univ. Press.
46.
Whiteman, D. (1982) "Congressional use of technology assessment," pp. 51-64 in D. M. O'BRIEN and D. A. MARCHAND.
47.
Whiteman, D. (1985) "Reaffirming the importance of strategic use: a two-dimensional perspective on policy analysis in Congress."Knowledge6: 203-224.
48.
Wilkes, J.M. (1983) "Case studies: a promising way to assess technological impacts?"4S Review1: 8-21.
49.
Wlodkowski, B.A., (1982) "Biomedical technology: the rDNA controversy," pp. 119-138 in D. M. O'BRIEN and D. A. MARCHAND.
50.
Wortman, P.M., A. Vinokur, and L. Sechrest (1982) Evaluation of NIH Consensus Development Process, Phase I: Final ReportAnn Arbor: Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
