The purpose of the research was to identify approaches to technology assessment (TA) and challenges of conducting TA and its areas. This applied research adopted a descriptive-analytical and meta-synthesis approach. First, the available literature on TA was studied and analyzed. Then, 10 international organizations of TA were carefully studied in terms of aims and approaches as well as important research areas. The data were gathered by referring to websites, analyzing news, research projects, etc. Having investigated the areas on which these organizations conduct TA, 171 areas were identified. Then, based on the information collected, a questionnaire was developed. As many as 31 experts completed the questionnaire. The analysis of the questionnaires indicated that conducting inter-disciplinary research, inter-organizational cooperation, drafting laws and regulations, establishing an independent institution are all necessary for TA. An appropriate method for TA should be comprehensive and help us achieve our goals. Participatory methods and Delphi method are the best methods used for TA. Political and organizational issues, economic issues, and social issues were the most important areas needing attention for TA. Furthermore, “field study” is the best method for identifying and analyzing the views of the general public on technologies. Social acceptance of technology, its opposition with customs and traditions, and its influence on people’s health, security, and privacy should be taken into account as well. Based on experts’ views, the areas needing the most urgent attention for Iran included air pollution, energy policies, artificial intelligence, smart networks of energy, cyber security, and social media.
جوزف، م. (1386). پیش‌بینی و ارزیابی فناوری (ترجمۀ مجتبی تیموری). رشد علوم اجتماعی، دورۀ 11، شمارۀ 1، صص 52 ـ 54.
ملک‌زاده، غ. (1384). ارزیابی فناوری؛ ضرورت‌ها و الزامات. رشد فناوری، شمارۀ 1، سال 2، صص 30 ـ 34.
نوروززاده، ر.؛ شفیع‌زاده، ح. و روحانی، ش. (1392). ارزیابی و تحلیل بخش علم و فناوری قانون برنامه پنجم توسعه از منظر اسناد فرادستی. فصلنامۀ راهبرد، سال 22، شمارۀ 66، صص 285 ـ 314.
ب- انگلیسی
Ahn, S. J., Yoon, H. Y., & Lee, Y. J. (2021). Text mining as a tool for real-time technology assessment: Application to the cross-national comparative study on artificial organ technology. Technology in Society, 66.
Assefa, G., & Frostell, B. (2007). Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: A case study of energy technologies. Technology in Society, 29, 63–78.
Chen, K., Jarboe, K., & Wolfe, J. (1981). Long-range scenario construction for technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 20, 27–40.
Coates, J. F. (1974). Some methods and techniques for comprehensive impact assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 6, 341–357.
Coates, J. F. (2001). A 21st century agenda for terchnology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 67, 303–308.
Coates, J. F., & Coates, V. T. (2016). Next stages in technology assessment: Topics and tools. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 113, 112–114.
Decker, M., & Ladikas, M. (Eds.) (2004). Bridges between science, society, and policy: Technology assessment: Methods and impacts. New York: Springer.
Geisler, E. (2002). The metrics of technology evaluation: where we stand and where we should go from here. Technology Management, 24)4(, 341–374.
Grunwald, A. (2011). Responsible innovation: Bringing together technology assessment, applied ethics, and STS research, Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies, 7, 9–31.
Grunwald, A. (2014). Technology assessment for responsible innovation. In Responsibe innovation 1: Innovative solutions for global issues. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Grunwald, A. (2020). The objects of technology assessment. Hermeneutic extension of consequentialist reasoning. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 7(1), 96-112.
Hellström, T. (2003). Systemic innovation and risk: Technology assessment and the challenge of responsible innovation. Technology in Society, 25, 369–384.
Keller, P., & Ledergerber, U. (1998). Bimodal System Dynamic: A Technology assessment and forecasting approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 58, 47–52.
Merkhofer, M. W. (1982). A process for technology assessment based on decision analysis. Technological Forecasting And Social Change, 22, 237–265.
Palm, E., & Hansson, S. O. (2006). The case for ethical technology assessment. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 73, 543–558.
Ramanujam, V., & Saaty, T. L. (1981). Technological choice in the less developed Countries: An analytic hierarchy approach. Technological Forecasting And Social Change, 19, 81–98.
Schomberg, V. (2011). Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In M. Dusseldorp and R. Beecroft (Eds). Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden,Wiesbaden: Vs Verlag.
Sharif, M. N., & Sundararajan, V. (1983). A quantitative model for the evaluation of technological alternatives. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 24, 15–29.
Watson, R. H. (1978). Interpretive structural modeling: A useful tool for technology assessment? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 11, 165–185.
Rezaeian Delouei, M. R., & Kazerooni, H. (2023). Technology Assessment: Approaches, Challenges, and Areas. Strategic Management Studies of National Defence Studies, 13(50), 111-87.
MLA
Mohammad Reza Rezaeian Delouei; Hanif Kazerooni. "Technology Assessment: Approaches, Challenges, and Areas", Strategic Management Studies of National Defence Studies, 13, 50, 2023, 111-87.
HARVARD
Rezaeian Delouei, M. R., Kazerooni, H. (2023). 'Technology Assessment: Approaches, Challenges, and Areas', Strategic Management Studies of National Defence Studies, 13(50), pp. 111-87.
VANCOUVER
Rezaeian Delouei, M. R., Kazerooni, H. Technology Assessment: Approaches, Challenges, and Areas. Strategic Management Studies of National Defence Studies, 2023; 13(50): 111-87.
