Abstract
by Robert Hoppe, Twente University, andJohn Grin, University of AmsterdamThis paper discusses how “the” transporta-tion problem was structured in traffic andtransportation studies by the parliamentarytechnology assessment (PTA) agencies ofGermany, Denmark and the European Un-ion. The focus is on cultural biases in TAmethods with regard to the way in whichthe social problem was defined and trans-lated into research questions (problemstructuration), the conclusions drawn fromthe TA studies, and the recommendationspresented. The analysis shows that culturaltheory is useful in assessing the degree ofpluralism in TA studies. It provides an in-strument to probe the assumptions in theviewpoints of experts, lay people, politi-cians and other actors involved in the tech-nology under scrutiny. It is in this area thatcultural theory and political science canfruitfully meet to realize, together, morereflective forms of dealing with cultural plu-ralism in the praxis of policy analysis.1 Introduction
Highlights
In the first half of the nineties, car mobility in Western Europe has turned out to be not the unanimous, unambiguous blessing it promised to become in the forties and fifties
In the following we discuss how “the” transportation problem was structured in traffic and transportation studies by the parliamentary technology assessment (PTA) agencies of Germany (Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag, TAB), Denmark (Teknologi-Naevnet; later on changed to Teknologi-Radet) and the European Union (STOA)
We have seen that the precise nature of the mix depends upon both “stable” factors such as political culture and the analytical routines and normative preferences of TA analysts, and more dynamic ones, such as the distribution of power between parties represented in parliament, and political expediency
Summary
In the first half of the nineties, car mobility in Western Europe has turned out to be not the unanimous, unambiguous blessing it promised to become in the forties and fifties. To deal effectively with confusing problematic situations, policymakers train the public’s attention on aspects and dimensions that, through generative metaphors, can be named Such story-telling simultaneously creates a problem frame, that is a cluster of inextricably intertwined causal and normative beliefs “on which people and institutions draw in order to give meaning, sense, and normative direction to their thinking and action” Regarding the biases that are allowed or expected in their studies, these agencies, more than others in Europe (Hoppe and Grin 1998), are guided by potentially contradictory considerations Their interest in institutional survival requires that the data, ideas, and arguments presented in their TA studies be usable for current policy debate, as well as be absolutely impartial. The reader will find more detailed descriptions of the three cases presented below, as well as an account of our approach to data collection and analysis
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: TATuP - Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
