social impact of technological innovations

ISSN 1392 – 0758 SOCIAL SCIENCES / SOCIALINIAI MOKSLAI. 2008. Nr.1 (59)

SOCIAL IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS Methodological Framework for Analyzing Social Impact of Technological Innovations Aist÷ Balžekien÷, Egl÷ Butkevičien÷ and Audron÷ Telešien÷ Kaunas University of Technology Donelaičio 73, LT-44239 Kaunas, Lithuania environmental sociology and critical social theory in general (Marcuse, 1964, 1976; Feenberg, 2002; Tellegen and Wolsink, 1998; Slovic 1987, 2000; Sjöberg et al., 2004). United Nations Development Program (2001) admitted that technological innovations might have unanticipated outcomes and have to be controlled (also in terms of distributional equity). Thus the cautious, critical approach to understanding and analysing technological innovations highlight the unanticipated outcomes of innovations, the uncertainties and difficulties in managing and controlling technologies, the negative influences of technological innovations upon environment and societies. Scientific research on risks of technologies has few precedents in Lithuania (Balžekien÷ and Rinkevičius, 2006). The scientific discussion about general social impacts (anticipated as well as unanticipated ones) of technological innovations is lacking. Technologies, technological innovations might be of different kinds, their impact might be temporal, permanent, wide ranging or local, etc. In order to understand the multifaced social influences upon various sectors and groups within a society, a sophisticated research is needed (a research, that would follow the cautious, critical approach to understanding and analysing technological innovations). The research problem (driving the argumentation line of this paper) thus might be defined through questions: • How can anticipated as well as unanticipated social impacts of technological innovations be assessed? • What methodological approach, what research methods and data sources could be meaningfully applied/used for social impact assessment? • What could be the structure of indicators used for such a scientific research? The aim of the paper is to present the methodological framework for technological innovations social impact assessment. In the first part of the article various scientific approaches towards functioning of technologies in society are presented. Various approaches to social impact assessment indicating main elements necessary for social impact assessment are presented in the second part of the paper. The originally constructed methodological model for technological innovation’s social impact assessment is elaborated in the third part of the article. Within this part

Abstract General methodological framework that can be applied for assessment of social impact(-s) of a technological innovation is presented in the paper. Methodological framework supposes a three-step analysis: (1) the description of a technological innovation under focus; (2) the character of the influence (the scope, timing, localization, etc.); (3) assessment of the changes in social environment, where the technological innovation is supposedly having influence. Methodological framework also foresees social research stages and methods, needed to be undertaken in order to assess the social impact of a technological innovation. Keywords: social impact assessment, technological innovation, methodological framework.

Introduction Innovation is a complex social process, where economic interests, interplay of societal and industrial forces, cultural norms and values, and other ‘soft’ factors play important roles. The economic managerial approach of explaining technological innovations emphasizes their positive outcomes (Halton, 1985; McLuhan and Powers, 1989; McLuhan, 2002), and preoccupies with modelling of optimal social and educational contexts for faster development and implementation of technological innovation. This approach looks for best ways to manage technological innovations so as to acquire maximum benefits for organizations or institutions. Vast majority of social research on technological innovations in Lithuania represent this economic managerial approach (Lindroos and Kriaučionien÷, 2006; Krušinskas and Vasiliauskait÷, 2005). Still the internationally acknowledged political paradigm of sustainable development implies precautionary principle. Precautionary principle in regard to technological innovations means being aware not only of the economic and social goods, that are induced or achieved through the technological innovations, but also of the risks, uncertainties, ethical dilemmas that come together with technological innovations. These have been highlighted by sociology of risk and uncertainty,

71

A. Balžekien÷, E. Butkevičien÷, A. Telešien÷. Methodological Framework for Analyzing Social Impact of Technological Innovations

Social Sciences / Socialiniai mokslai. 2008. Nr. 1 (59)

risks by experts and the social rationality of public perceptions become apparent’ (Tellegen and Wolsink, 1998).

some examples of empirical research on social impacts of technological innovations or developmental projects are also presented.

One of the attempts to explain the perceptions of technological risks is psychometric risk perception paradigm. It was inspired by Starr (1969) article1, that raised the question ‘How safe is safe enough?’ In his opinion, society has reached the optimal balance between risk and benefit that are related to each human activity. Psychometric methods are based on the perception of risk – benefit in evaluation of various technologies. The most known scholar from psychometric paradigm, Slovic (1987) has stated that risk perception is intuitive judgment about technological hazards. The strategy of this paradigm in risk perception research is to develop a classification of hazards that could be used in the prognosis of a public response towards the risks coming from these hazards. The developers of psychometric risk perception theory (Fischhoff, 2000; Slovic, 1987, 2000; Sjöberg et al., 2004) indicated originally nine dimensions of risk, that explain public risk perceptions of certain technologies., such as the voluntariness of risk taking; the immediacy of effect, the extent that the risks were known precisely by the person who was exposed to risk; the severity of consequences; the extent to what certain risks are known to science; the level of control (in terms of personal skills or diligence); the newness of risk; and others. These dimensions are also useful in revealing what character of social impact has certain technological innovations, and explaining why people accept or reject certain technological innovations.

Approaches towards technology in society ‘We are by nature complex mixes of reasons and impulse who cannot resist experimenting with technology and therefore should not be surprised to encounter both desired and undesired consequences’ (Goyder, 1997).

In the scientific discourse several approaches towards the social impact of technology can be distinguished. The approach emphasizing positive social impact stems from the ideas of progress (Mesthene, 1970). This approach could be illustrated by the paradigm of technological determinism. The euphoria of positive changes in society due to the wide diffusion of some technology is evident in the futuristic visions of the authors, like John Halton, who in 1985 described the future of computer technology as a network of myriad of small but powerful computers that manage every machine or device; computers that are at every home, at every desk and at every workplace, and all are connected to the network, encompassing the gigantic database. The optimism about the social impact of technology is evident from Marshall McLuhan’s works, mainly related to the new decentralized and more democratic world that has been created by electronic mass media and has been named as ‘global village’ (McLuhan and Powers, 1989; McLuhan, 2002). The same approach employs Alan Toffler (1980) elaborating the concept of ‘third wave’. On the opposite, there is an approach emphasizing the threats to society that are produced by the diffusion of technologies. This point of view is elaborated in science fiction (e.g. William Gibson’s novel Neuromancer or Orwel’s novel 1984) or in popular films (e.g. Island, Network or Matrix). Technology can be the mean of surveillance, a threat to physical existence or moral and emotional well-being of mankind. ‘Big brother’, cyborgs, polluted cities, clones – it is just a few of many metaphors describing the negative social impact of technology. The approach emphasizing negative social impact of technology is mainly related to the critical theory. Marxist theory explains that machines and artefacts embody the values of ruling class (Feenberg, 2002). Marcuse (1964, 1976) presents the theory of technological rationality that gives a right for elite to control society. But a lot of authors emphasize that social impact of technology has both negative and positive consequences. As Harper (1989) argues, technology can cause changes in three different ways: first, technological innovations increase the alternatives available in society, second, new technology alters interaction patterns among people, and third, technological innovations create new problems to be dealt with. As Tellegen and Wolsink (1998) states, the main reason for opposition for technologies is how people perceive the risks coming from these technologies.

Social impact assessment Most often social impact assessment is understood in terms of planning, management and governance. In this perspective social impact assessment (SIA) is defined as policy tools for assessing (1) current contexts and situations, and (2) possible outcomes of various decisions. For example, World Bank (2003) views Integrated Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, or Social Assessment as part of project preparation or project assessment phases. Usually, the aims of such social assessments are: (a) to let the project decision makers know more abut the social and cultural situation of the affected region; (b) to give the different stakeholders in affected area a chance to express their needs and suggestions; (c) to assess the project’s social impacts, so as to ensure the potential social problems can be fully understood and valued, and to propose specific measures to avoid and abate such negative impacts (for example, China - Guiyang Transport Project: social assessment report, 2007). Thus social assessment is understood as an analytical exercise examining the context and the social issues possibly affected (positively and negatively) by the project. Usually, following managerial perspective, this kind of social impact assessment has structured assessment instruments and aims at describing the apparent, the expected and already debated aspects of social impact.

‘ the risks people associate with the facilities are the main reasons for opposition. Risk judgments become salient factors as a result of the decisional context. the differences between the assessments of

1

72

Cited in Slovic (1987)



sustainable development, foster social sustainability, or threaten it.

It should also be stressed here, that managerial perspective looks upon social changes which emerge dew to development – that is due to some planned activities. Thus this perspective overlooks causation unrelated to a development such as ongoing trends, environmental change, etc. (Barrow, 2008). Managerial perspective is limited in analysing the latent or long-term social changes, the unplanned and unexpected outcomes. A scientific approach to social impact assessment highlights the holistic, systemic understanding of both – contexts of change and outcomes of change induced by a project, program, plan, technological innovation, etc. It takes into account negative as well as positive outcomes, direct and obvious, as well as perceived impacts. Scientific approach is also interested in the counter-impact of societal changes upon, for example, technological innovation (through acceptance, rejection). Barrow (2008) describes SIA as a process of analysing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative; and defines social impact as the consequences on a human population of any action that alters how people live, think, behave, and react to each other. The impacts, studied during social impact assessment, might be positive or negative. The negative manifestations include: increased insecurity, frustration, hardship, conflict; and positive manifestations include: improvements of confidence, social capital, and livelihoods (Barrow, 2008). As the impacts are multidimensional and miscellaneous, it is difficult to make a finite list of necessary analytic elements of social assessment. World Bank (2003) suggests, that social assessment would typically require following elements: • analysis of the socio-cultural, institutional, historical and political context; • analytic work on social diversity and gender; • analytic work on institutions, rules and behaviours; • analytic work on stakeholders; • analysing equity of opportunity to participate in benefits; • analytic work on social risks. Scientific discourse on social impact assessment gives even broader view of elements, necessary for social impact assessment. Gritten (2008) argue that during social assessment identification of stakeholders and identification of values and interests are essential. Walker (2007) highlights the need for distributional analysis. Walker (2008) states that while conducting social impact assessment, inequalities are usually conceived in terms of equal opportunities, economic and social goods or bads. Analysis of inequalities in or from environmental issues is largely missing. Thus author calls for integrating concepts of environmental justice and distributional analysis into social impact assessment. When talking about stakeholder analysis, Barrow (2008) reminds that social impact assessment should be mindful of future stakeholders who have not been yet represented. Such a statement resembles sustainable development concept. While conducting social impact assessment, researchers must ask if changes contribute to

Methodological framework This part of the paper presents the originally elaborated methodological model for research on social impact of technological innovation. The model presents generalized guidelines for conducting scientific research on technological innovation’s social impact. In order to conduct social assessment of specific technological innovation, the model should be adapted. In this paper social impact assessment is understood as a set of research activities directed towards description of (1) the context and situation of affected areas, and (2) evaluation (measurement) of expected as well as unplanned, also perceived as well as real/direct social impact. The methodology of social impact of technology is based on the standpoint of Michael Menser and Stanley Aronowitz (1996), who suggested employing of three methodological distinctions: ‘The first is ontological: what technology is. On this plane of inquiry, we offer a theory of complexity which posits that technology, science and culture all mix together along a continuum such that each object, to varying degrees, is the result of each of these three. The second is pragmatic: what technologies do; and the third is phenomenological: how technologies affect our experience in ways that are not bound to questions of function’ (Menser and Aronowitz, 1996).

In the methodological model constructed by the authors of this article, several analytical aspects are considered to be essential in order to assess technological innovation’s social impact (Figure 1): 1. The characteristics of a technological innovation. Answering questions: What is making influence? What is the technology? 2. The character of impact. Answering question: What kind of impact? How can we describe the impact itself? 3. Changes in social systems. Answering question: Where and what changes within a social system does the innovation bring about? A social impact can be real or perceived and affect individuals, families, groups, societies, countries, and even the global community (Barrow, 2008). Real impact in this paper is understood as a direct impact of technology, e.g. internet enabled new forms of learning (distance learning). But the perception of a technology (or attitudes towards it) by public or experts might also have separate impacts. For example, the acceptability of a technology is determined not by the technology itself or its positive impacts, but by the positive opinions that experts articulate in the media. These expert opinions have impact, but we would call this impact – a reflected one, or the perceived impact. Thus both - the real/direct, and the reflected/perceived impact should be studied. Before analysing the three dimensions of a technological innovation’s social impact, the socioeconomic, cultural, political contexts should be understood. Context is first understood as social, political cultural and historic structures, relevant to explanation of technological innovation’s social impact. Context might also be understood as direct situations where certain

73



Acceptance Rejection Modification

Perceived impact

Real impact

Characteristics of a technological innovation

CHARACTER OF SOCIAL

CHANGES IN SOCIAL SYSTEM

IMPACT

What kind of impact?

Where and what changes did it bring?

CONTEXT Figure 1. Diagnostic blocks for research on technological innovation’s social impact 3.

The actors of the processes of production, implementation, diffusion of the technological innovation. Who bears the authorship or licence? Who produces, who disseminates? Who are the intended users or consumers? Whose needs and interests the technological innovation was intended to fulfil? What kind of impact? After the analysis of the characteristics of technological innovation, the second step is to evaluate the character of technological innovation’s impact. The impact can be direct and symbolically reflected in societal consciousness. Reflected impact can have self-dependent (from direct impact) consequences. Moreover, ethical aspect of technological innovation has to be taken into account that raises questions whether the creation and use of certain technological innovations is ethical (Fink, 2007). Authors in this paper develop the structure of indicators used to evaluate the character of technological innovation’s impact (based on works by Fischhoff et al., 2000; Rogers, 1995, 2003; Sjöberg, 2000; Slovic, 2000) that will be used further to evaluate the social impact of certain technologies. These indicators are presented further: • The scope of impact: − The speed of impact (how quickly the social impact of technological innovation has manifested itself); − The localization of impact (how broadly the impact of technological innovation is spread; what geographical area is under impact); − The lasting of impact (if technological innovation has long-term or short – term impact);

actions (related to technological innovation diffusion or use, etc.) are taking place and time. Then the situation, its time and locality, the underlying systems of beliefs and values are described, stakeholders indicated. Teun A. van Dijk (2001) speaks of contextual model, which would entail all the possible and relevant context settings, situations, needed for better understanding and explanation of technological innovation’s social impacts. Further in this paper the three dimensions of a technological innovation’s social impact assessment are conceptualized and the set of indicators for each of the dimensions is introduced. What is making influence? What is the technology? The first element – definition of technology – is very important part of the model. As John Goyder (1997) argues, ‘one of the difficulties in the analysis of technology and society is whether the myriad specific technologies have any common denominator beyond the most basic definition. If not, each technology should be analyzed separately, with great caution about drawing general conclusions’. The first task of a researcher thus would be to describe a technology, the impact of which he/she will study further. The impact will depend upon the characteristics of a technological innovation. Several indicators might be used for description of the characteristics of a technological innovation. 1. The field of technological innovation. Is it from the field of medical, communication technologies, transportation technologies, etc. What novelty with respect to existing technologies does it bring about? 2. The intended functions and purpose of technological innovation. What was it created for? What needs or interests was it intended to fulfil?

74


Social Sciences / Socialiniai mokslai. 2008. Nr. 1 (59) • The voluntariness of impact (if the individual is voluntarily or unwillingly exposed to technological innovation). • The level of conscious understanding of impact (if individual or society consciously understand and is informed about possibilities and threats of technological innovation). • The level of impact control (if the subjects under impact (individual, organization, society) are able to control the impact of technological innovation). • The extent to which the impact can be foreseen (what unforeseen side-effects manifest themselves). • The stage of technological innovation’s diffusion (the stage and evenness of technological innovation diffusion, synergetic effects). • The obviousness of impact (if the impact of technological innovation is obvious or latent). These indicators are also closely related to the acceptance or rejection of certain technological innovations in society. Where and what changes within social system does the innovation bring about? The third dimension within a social impact assessment of a technological innovation would be the evaluation and measurement of changes within a social system, which occurred due to the innovation. The social impact assessment has to be conducted in macro, mezzo and micro levels. That is, it should be researched if there are and what changes there are in macro level (society, region), mezzo level (institutions, organizations) and micro level (individuals, their groups, households). In macro level, social impact assessment is conducted by referring to national, regional etc. databases of social indicators. From functional point of view, the aim of an indicator system and database is to provide with ‘optimally aggregated (generalized) information’2. Social impact assessment includes not merely the accumulation of statistical data. This stage should include purposive systematization of data that might become proof of ongoing changes in a social system. For evaluation of macro changes in social system, several national and international databases might be used: • Organization for economic co-operation and development (OECD) provides with: general statistics, statistics on education and training, development, information and communication technologies, social and welfare statistics, demography and population, etc. (portal http://www.oecd.org/statsportal). • Eurostat statistical data on: population and social conditions, sustainable development, social cohesion, public health, etc. (portal http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu). • National statistical data, for example Lithuanian national bureau of statistics (portal www.stat.gov.lt).

Assessment of social impact in macro, mezzo and micro levels might be also conducted by using various social research methods: surveys, interviews, focus group interviews, case studies, etc. Any social research directed at identification, understanding and explanation of social impact of technological innovations upon institutions, organizations, individuals, their groups or households would provide with valuable information. Together with macro, mezzo or micro level analyses, the research on technological innovation’s social impact assessment should also include analysis of opportunities and threats that technological innovation brings about. The so called risk-and-benefits analysis should be carried out. Risk – benefit analysis enlists aggregate harms and benefits, but does not show how these benefits or harms are distributed among the population. Mal-distribution might cause severe social problems, e.g., concentration of information and communication technologies in the hands of higher classes might cause digital divide, growing income gap, etc. Together with macro, mezzo, micro and risk-benefit, distributional analysis, the sectorial analysis should be carried out. Social impacts might include social, cultural, health and psychological impacts and can result from environmental and/or socioeconomic changes, including technical and cultural innovations (Barrow, 2008). The social impact assessment could go into more detailed analyses of different impacts in different societal sectors, as public health, social security, governance practices, education, etc. All the above mentioned indicators and analytical layer of social impact assessment are presented in a generalized model of technological innovation’s social impact assessment in Figure 2. The model presents the structure of indicators for social impact assessment as well as main steps, the process of a research. The figure depicts three main stages/steps that need to be undertaken in order to assess technological innovation’s impacts upon social or cultural systems. The chronology of the research steps is not strict - the steps can be conducted together, one by one. General rule – a researcher should first understand the ‘what’ and only then proceed with analysing the ‘how’. Generally it is rather difficult to construct a methodological framework for social impact assessment, as only comparatively narrow studies of effects of certain technologies upon society has been carried out so far. For example, the impact of new ICTs upon community development, social cohesion, etc. The impacts can be best understood by studying them in long-term run, that is – by conducting longitudinal or retrospective, historical analyses. Still the role of social sciences is to identify and help in solving of current, emerging problems, thus the historical or longitudinal analysis might not be applied too often. Further in the text the guidelines for research on technological innovation’s social impact assessment are presented.

2

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Quality standards for the contents, procedures and methods of social impact assessment from the point of view of the social partners and other civil society players, 2007/C 175/06.

75



TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION’S SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

STEP 1 Analysis of characteristics of a technological innovation Indicators: - The field of technological innovation - The intended functions and purpose - The actors of the innovation processes STEP 2 Analysis of the character of technological innovation’s impact Indicators: 1. Scope of impact 2. Voluntariness of impact 3. Level of conscious understanding of impact 4. Level of impact control 5. Extent to which the impact can be foreseen 6. Stage and evenness of the diffusion of technological innovation 7. Obviousness of impact

STEP 3

Analysis of changes in social systems Layers of analysis: • Analysis of changes in different levels: micro, mezzo and macro • Analysis of opportunities and threats (risk-benefit), including distributional analysis • Sectorial analysis (of impacts in different societal sectors)

Figure 2. The structure of indicators for assessment of technological innovation’s social impact Social scientists use a broad array of data-gathering tools, both qualitative and quantitative, in social assessment. In addition to substantive analytical tools, social assessment uses participatory tools that can increase understanding of the issues (World Bank, 2003). Very often social impact assessment uses anthropological participatory observation (e.g. China - Guiyang Transport Project: social assessment report, 2007). Fieldwork is basic for research in anthropology, and when applied in social impact assessment, it helps understanding the practical living conditions and real ideas of study objects. Still social impact assessment should rely on triangulation of methods and follow mixed-methods paradigm. Such a research would encompass various data sources, usage and triangulation of various research methods.

Structured or semi-structured questionnaires, interviews, focus group discussions and other research methods add rigour. Statistical data analysis, secondary data analysis are valuable as the researcher does not have to spend time collecting primary data – much of data has already been gathered and analysed by other researchers. To the extent possible, the social assessment builds on existing data. Secondary data sources include official reports, statistics, documents and studies. Besides triangulation of methods, social impact assessment should rely upon triangulation of data sources. That is, researchers should try to collect the social information (data) from as many social groups, actors as possible, so as to represent the experiences, values, attitudes of various stakeholders. Social assessment often uses multiple units of analysis, for example households,

76



individuals within the household and supra-household units like communities. Generally, choice of tools and methods for a specific social assessment will depend on several factors, such as the impact area and the accessibility (existence) of previous social data, the time frame for the social assessment, the availability of capable human resources. Speaking of the process of social impact assessment, several stages can be distinguished. Authors of this article propose that social impact assessment might be conducted in two stages: 1. Social ‘scanning’ – the pilot study into potential or emerging social impacts of a technological innovation. 2. Social impact assessment. Social scanning would help to identify the social contexts and social groups/systems under influence, would help to identify the emerging or potential social problems, new societal developments that arise due to the influence of an innovation. During this stage firstly researcher looks for scientific studies, articles, research reports, etc., where related issues are discussed and analyzed (maybe some aspects of possible impact have already been studied).

Next, researcher tries to identify: main problems, sectors within which changes are taking place, trends of changes, main variables that should be studied in greater detail, geographic territory under influence, units of analysis, (society, group of organizations, households, individuals, communities, etc.), most suitable research methods (Carruthers and Vanclay , 2007). Similarly, World Bank experts (2003) state that first stage of social assessment entails conducting a Rapid Context Assessment of available data and identifying stakeholders and key issues. The purpose of social scanning stage is to identify (1) the potential social impacts of technological innovation, (2) potential areas, sectors, stakeholder groups under influence. Stage of social impact assessment is the stage of gathering, accumulating and analysing social data on the potential impacts indicated in the previous stage. The purpose of this stage – to assess social change processes induced by a technological innovation, to highlight the threats, risks, problems, challenges as well as benefits, opportunities that the new technology brings to the society. Also it aims at mapping social groups, sectors under

Table 1 Technological innovation’s social impact assessment: examples of research strategies, methods and research questions Level of changes

Research method

Secondary data analysis and statistical data analysis

Survey Macro level

Expert interview

Document analysis

Research questions Changes in accessibility and travel time to the main centres of economic activity (industrial estates, enterprise parks, and ports), through rehabilitation/reconstruction of selected arterial roads [Egypt] (Egypt Alexandria Development Project: integrated environmental and social impact assessment, 2007). Chinese attitudes towards benefits and harms of Guiyang Transportation Project. Attitudes to and expectations for land acquisition, relocation and resettlement led by the Project (China - Guiyang Transport Project: social assessment report, 2007). How would agricultural technologies transfer project affect the poverty distribution? What is poverty status at affected areas in China? (World Bank Financed China Agro-tech Project (phase II) Social Assessment Report, 2003). How decision-making process and characteristics of the adopters influenced the development of the technical and scientific capabilities of diagnostic ultrasound (Koch, 1995).

Focus group interview

What impact ICT’s have upon social interaction processes within local communities? (Butkevičien÷, 2006).

Ethnographic study, direct observation

Applied to get visual and perceptual information including villages’ appearance, farmers’ living and productive conditions, the difference between biogas users and non-biogas users (China- Eco-farming project social assessment, 2007).

Survey

Levels of acceptance/rejection of products with genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) (Marris, 2001).

Interview

How would new Hubei Hydroelectric Power Station (China) affect local family lives (China - Hubei Hydroelectric Project - social assessment, 2002).

Mezzo level

Micro level

77



influence, aims at indicating stakeholders and their roles in the process of either accepting or rejecting technologies. The result of this stage – a research report that provides with (1) information on major social impacts, positive and negative trends of influence; (2) recommendations for combating the negative trends and fostering the positive ones. Several practical examples of already carried out social impact assessments, the research strategies, methods used in these assessments, and research questions are presented in the table below.

•

•

Conclusions •

•

•

•

•

•

In the scientific discourse several approaches towards the social impact of technology can be distinguished: the approach emphasizing only positive social impact; approach emphasizing the threats to society that are produced by the diffusion of technologies; and an approach stating that social impact of technology has both negative and positive consequences. The view that authors of the article favour presenting methodological framework of social impact assessment encompasses the assessment of both negative and positive consequences of technologies in society. Social impact assessment is usually treated as policy tools (managerial perspective) and understood in terms of planning, management and governance. However, there is a need for a complex methodological framework for analyzing social impact assessment of technological innovations that would take into account negative as well as positive outcomes, direct and obvious, as well as perceived impacts. Proposed in this article methodological framework of social impact assessment highlights the holistic, systemic understanding of both – contexts of change and outcomes of change induced by a project, program, plan, technological innovation, etc. Proposed methodological framework could be applied to social impact assessment of any technology. Thus the application of this model should foresee and encompass following analytical blocks: description of contexts and situations under study; characteristics of technological innovation; character of impact; assessing changes in social systems. The analytical block of ‘contexts and situations under study’ would entail description of direct sociopolitical, institutional, cultural contexts of technological innovation’s implementation, use and diffusion. The analytical block of ‘characteristics of a technological innovation’ might be operationalized using a group of indicators: field of application of technological innovation, intended purpose and functions of a technological innovation, actors of the innovation process. ‘Character of impact’ might be operationalized using such a group of indicators: scope of impact, voluntariness of impact, level of conscious

understanding of impact, level of impact control, extent to which the impact can be foreseen, stage and evenness of the diffusion of technological innovation, obviousness of impact. Assessing changes in social systems includes several layers of analysis: analysis of changes in micro, mezzo and macro levels; analysis of opportunities and threats (risk-benefit analysis), distributional analysis; sectorial analysis (of impacts in different societal sectors). Research on technological innovation’s social impact assessment should be best conducted by applying mixed methods research strategy; by triangulation of data collection methods and triangulation of data sources; by relying upon already available data whenever possible; by following two steps analysis: (1) social ‘scanning’, and (2) assessment of social impact of a technological innovation.

References 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9. 10.

11.

12. 13.

14.

78

Balžekien÷, A., & Rinkevičius, L. (2006). Nuclear risk perceptions in Lithuanian society: theoretical approaches and empirical insights. Social Sciences, 2(52), 10-20. Barrow, C.J. (2008). SIA as a tool for conflict management: environmental conflicts and impact assessment. Environmental Conflict Mediation and Social Impact Assessment: approaches for enhanced environmental governance. International conference materials. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www.tkk.fi/Yksikot/YTK/koulutus/tupo/Barrow2008.pdf. Butkevičien÷, E. (2006). Diffusion of technologies in local communities: case of Lithuania. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania. Carruthers, G., & Vanclay, F. (2007). Enhancing the social content of Environmental Management Systems in Australian agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 6(3), 326-340. China - Guiyang Transport Project: social assessment report (2007). World Bank, Transport, Energy & Mining Sector (EASTE). Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www-wds.worldbank.org. China - Hubei Hydroelectric Project - social assessment (2002). World Bank, Energy & Mining Sector Unit (EASEG). Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www-wds.worldbank.org. China- Eco-farming project social assessment (2007). World Bank. Unit of Rural Development and Unit of Natural Resources & Environment (EASRE). Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://wwwwds.worldbank.org. Egypt - Alexandria Development Project: integrated environmental and social impact assessment (2007). World Bank, Unit of Sustainable Development. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www-wds.worldbank.org. Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming technology: a Critical Theory Revised. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fink, S. (2007). Ethics vs. Innovation? The Impact of Embryo Research Laws on the Inno-vative Ability of National Economies. Science, Technology and Innovation studies, 3, 2. Fischhoff, B. (2000). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits. In P. Slovic (Ed.). The perception of risk. London: Earthscan Publications. Goyder, J. (1997) Technology and society: A Canadian perspective. Peterborough: Broadview Press. Gritten, D. (2008). Can ethical analysis play a role in forest conflit mediation? A case of upper Lapland. Paper presented at the international scientific conference Environmental Conflict Mediation and Social Impact Assessment: Approaches for Enhanced Environmental Governance? Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki. Halton, J. (1985). Introduction to information technology: the anatomy of computing in the information technology revolution. T. Forester (Ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.


Social Sciences / Socialiniai mokslai. 2008. Nr. 1 (59) 15. Harper, C.L. (1989). Exploring Social Change. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 16. Koch, E. B. (1995). Why the Development Process Should be Part of Medical Technology Assessment: Examples from the Development of Medical Ultrasound. In A. Rip, T.J. Mosa, J. Schot (Eds.). Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London and New York: Pinter Publishers. 17. Krušinskas, R., & Vasiliauskait÷, A. (2005). Technological innovation financing sources and risk constraints for company technology following strategy. Social Sciences, 4(50), 17-25. 18. Lindroos, P., & Kriaučionien÷, M. (2006). Excelling in biotechnology as an opportunity for innovative growth in catchingup countries. Social Sciences, 4(54), 68-79. 19. Marcuse, H. (1964). One-Dimentional Man: studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Boston: Beacon Press. 20. Marcuse, H. (1976). Introduction to One-Dimentional Man. In P.L. Bereano (Ed.). Technology as a social and political phenomenon. New York: Wiley. 21. Marris, C. (2001) Public views on GMO’s: reconstructing the myths. EMBO reports, 2001 July 7, 2(7), 545–548. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/. 22. McLuhan, M. (2002). The Gutenberg galaxy: the making of topographic man. Toronto: University of Toronto press. 23. McLuhan, M., & Powers, B.R. (1989). The Global village: transformations in world life and media in the 21st century. New York: Oxford University Press. 24. Menser, M., & Aronowitz, S. (1996). On cultural studies, science and technology in Technoscience and cyberculture. S. Aronowitz, B. Martinsons, M. Menser, J. Rich (Eds.). London: Routledge. 25. Mesthene, E. G. (1970). Technological change: its impact on man and society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 26. Mesthene, E.G. (1976). Social change. In P.L. Bereano (Ed.). Technology as a social and political phenomenon. New York: Wiley. 27. Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Quality standards for the contents, procedures and methods of social impact assessment from the point of view of the social partners and other civil society players, 2007/C 175/06. 28. Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. (4th Ed.). New York: Free Press. 29. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. (5th Ed.). New York: Free Press. 30. Sjöberg, L. (2000). The methodology of risk research. Quality and Quantity, 34, 407-418. 31. Sjöberg, L., Moen, B.E., & Rundmo, T. (2004) Explaining Risk Perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research. Trondheim: Rotunde publikasjoner. 32. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk/Science, 236, 280-285. 33. Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk. London: Earthscan Publications. 34. Tellegen, E., & Wolsink, M. (1998). Society and Its Environment: An Introduction. Amsterdam: OPA. 35. Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: William Morrow and company, Inc. 36. United Nations Development Program. (2001). Human Development Report 2001: Making New Technologies work for Human Development. New York: UNDP. 37. van Dijk, T.A. (2001). Multidisciplinary Critical discourse analysis: a plea for diversity. In R. Wodak, M. Meyer (Eds.). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE Publications. 38. Walker, G.P. (2007). Environmental justice and the distributional deficit in policy appraisal in the UK. Environmental research letters, 2 (2007) 045004, 1-7. 39. Walker, G.P. (2008). Environmental inequalities and impact assessment. Environmental Conflict Mediation and Social Impact Assessment: approaches for enhanced environmental governance. International conference materials. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www.tkk.fi/Yksikot/YTK/koulutus/tupo/Walker2008.pdf. 40. World Bank Financed China Agro-tech Project (phase II) Social Assessment Report (2003). World Bank, Rural Dev, Natural Resources & Environment (EASRE). Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www-wds.worldbank.org. 41. World Bank. (2003). Social Analysis Sourcebook: incorporating social dimensions into Bank-supported projects. Washington (DC): World Bank.

A. Balžekien÷, E. Butkevičien÷, A. Telešien÷ Technologinių inovacijų socialinio poveikio tyrimo metodologija Santrauka Straipsnyje sprendžiama mokslin÷ problema gali būti apibr÷žta keletu klausimų: kokia metodologin÷ prieiga labiausiai tiktų technologinių inovacijų socialinio poveikio tyrimui; kokie pagrindiniai technologinių inovacijų socialinio poveikio tyrimo elementai; kokiais indikatoriais, jų blokais gal÷tų remtis toks tyrimas, kokius socialin÷s informacijos surinkimo metodus ir šaltinius prasmingiausia rinktis? Siekiant atsakyti į iškeltus klausimus, straipsnyje pristatomos technologijų socialin÷s analiz÷s tradicijos, apžvelgiami sociologijoje naudojami technologijų analiz÷s aspektai. Mokslin÷je literatūroje galima išskirti keletą technologijų socialinio poveikio analiz÷s tradicijų: perspektyva akcentuojanti vien tik teigiamą technologijų poveikį; perspektyva akcentuojanti gr÷smes, susijusias su technologijų sklaida; ir perspektyva teigianti, kad tiriant technologijų socialinį poveikį svarbu atsižvelgti tiek į teigiamą, tiek į neigiamą poveikį. Pastaroji perspektyva, į socialin÷s analiz÷s lauką įtraukianti ir neigiamus, ir teigiamus poveikius, šiuo metu yra dažniausiai naudojama moksliniuose darbuose. Socialinio poveikio tyrimai pasižymi analiz÷s elementų įvairove bei skirtingomis perspektyvomis. Dominuojantis požiūris į socialinio poveikio vertinimą – vadybinis, kai socialinio poveikio vertinimas suprantamas kaip politikos priemon÷. Tačiau žymiai gilesnę analizę įgalina mokslinis požiūris į socialinio poveikio tyrimą. Toks tyrimas įgalina atlikti ne tik planuoto, tik÷tino technologijų poveikio analizę, bet ir neplanuoto, neigiamo, atspind÷to poveikio analizę. Mokslinis požiūris į socialinio poveikio vertinimą yra holistinis, sisteminis, įgalinantis ir pokyčių konteksto, ir pokyčių esm÷s gilų supratimą. Moksliniai socialinio poveikio tyrimai dažnai apima atgalinio ryšio vertinimą, t.y. kaip socialiniai pokyčiai veikia technologijų modifikacijas arba kokią įtaką socialiniai veiksniai daro technologinių inovacijų požymiams. Pagrindiniai technologinių inovacijų socialinio poveikio elementai yra šie: sociokultūrinio ir politinio, istorinio, institucinio kontekstų analiz÷; suinteresuotų veik÷jų identifikavimas ir jų vertybių, interesų tyrimas; rizikos-naudos analiz÷; pasiskirstymo analiz÷; pavojų klasifikacija. Remiantis teorin÷mis technologinių inovacijų socialinio poveikio prielaidomis bei socialinio poveikio praktikų analize, sudarytas ir šiame straipsnyje pristatomas originalus metodologinis modelis technologinių inovacijų socialiniam poveikiui tyrin÷ti. Straipsnio autorių nuomone, technologinių inovacijų socialinio poveikio tyrimas tur÷tų apimti kelis pagrindinius diagnostinius blokus: kontekstai ir situacijos, susiję su tiriamais poveikiais; technologin÷s inovacijos charakteristikos (kas daro įtaką); poveikio pobūdis; socialin÷s aplinkos/sistemos pokyčiai (kas ir kaip pasikeit÷). Analitinis blokas „Kontekstai ir situacijos“ apimtų tiesioginių sociopolitinių, institucinių, kultūrinių kontekstų aprašymą. Analitinis blokas „Technologin÷s inovacijos charakteristikos“ apimtų inovacijos srities, paskirties (funkcijų) ir diegimo proceso dalyvių indikatorius. Konkrečios technologin÷s inovacijos tiriamam poveikiui įvertinti pirmiausiai pasitelkiami technologin÷s inovacijos pobūdį aprašantys kriterijai: • Technologin÷s inovacijos sritis (medicina, komunikacija, transportas, energetika ar kt.); • Numatoma technologijos paskirtis ir funkcijos; • Technologin÷s inovacijos diegimo proceso dalyviai (kas sukūr÷, kas gamina, kas platina, kas potencialūs naudotojai). Analitinis blokas „Poveikio pobūdis“ apimtų poveikio indikatorius. Kai aiški technologin÷s inovacijos charakteristika, būtina įvertinti, koks šios technologin÷s inovacijos poveikio pobūdis. Poveikis gali būti tiesioginis bei simboliškai atspind÷tas visuomen÷s sąmon÷je. Reflektyviai atspind÷tas poveikis gali tur÷ti savarankiškas (nuo tiesioginio inovacijų poveikio) pasekmes. Be to, labai svarbus yra technologinių inovacijų etinis aspektas – ar etiška kurti ir naudoti tam tikrą inovaciją (Fink, 2007). Poveikio pobūdžiui įvertinti pasitelkiami tokie indikatoriai (jie sudaryti remiantis Fischhoff ir kt., 2000; Rogers, 1995, 2003; Sjöberg, 2000; Slovic, 2000): • poveikio mastas: (a) poveikio greitis (kaip greitai pasireiškia technologin÷s inovacijos poveikis socialinei aplinkai), (b) poveikio lokalizacija (kaip plačiai pasireiškia technologin÷s inovacijos poveikis), (c) poveikio ilgalaikiškumas (ar technologin÷ inovacija turi trumpalaikį ar ilgalaikį poveikį); • poveikio savanoriškumas (ar individas yra savanoriškai ar priverstinai veikiamas technologin÷s inovacijos);

79



tikslinga vykdyti dvejomis pakopomis: iš pradžių atliekant socialinį „skenavimą“, paskui vykdant socialinio poveikio analizę. Socialinis „skenavimas“ identifikuoja su technologin÷mis inovacijomis susijusias socialines problemas, kontroversijas, potencialius ar vykstančius pokyčius. Šios tyrimin÷s faz÷s metu nustatoma: pagrindin÷s problemos, pokyčių sritys ir kryptys, pagrindiniai kintamieji, kuriuos reikia detaliau tirti, geografin÷ poveikio teritorija, analiz÷s vienetai (visuomen÷, organizacijų grup÷, namų ūkiai, individai, bendruomen÷ ar kt.), analiz÷s metodai, suinteresuotų veik÷jų grup÷s, identifikuojami šių veik÷jų grupių lyderiai, atliekama literatūros analiz÷ siekiant atrasti jau atliktų studijų panašiomis temomis. Šios pakopos tikslas – išankstin÷ analiz÷, kurios metu identifikuojamos su technologin÷s inovacijos diegimu ir sklaida susijusios problemos. Socialinio poveikio analiz÷s stadijoje renkama informacija apie socialinio skenavimo stadijoje identifikuotas problemas, pokyčių trajektorijas. Informacijos rinkimui pasitelkiami įvairūs socialinių tyrimų metodai. Šios pakopos tikslas – detaliai išanalizuoti pagrindines su technologin÷s inovacijos diegimu susijusias socialines problemas, socialinius pokyčius. Šios pakopos rezultatas – ataskaita, kuri sprendimų pri÷m÷jams suteikia informacijos apie (1) svarbias socialines problemas, technologin÷s inovacijos teigiamo ir neigiamo poveikio trajektorijas, (2) rekomendacijas neigiamo poveikio mažinimui ir teigiamo poveikio didinimui. Socialinio poveikio analiz÷ reikalauja kompleksiško, daugiapakopio tyrimo. Jungtinių Tautų Ekonomikos ir Socialinių reikalų komisijos teigimu, socialinio poveikio duomenų rinkimui reikalingi dideli laiko ir finansiniai ištekliai, paprastai tokia analiz÷ užtrunka ne mažiau kaip metus. Remiantis atlikta teorine ir metodologine analize, galima teigti, kad technologinių inovacijų socialinių poveikio tyrimas turi būti holistinis, kompleksinis bei apimti tiek teigiamus, tiek neigiamus socialinio poveikio aspektus. Tyrimo tęstinumo perspektyvos galimos per konkrečių technologinių inovacijų socialinio poveikio analiz÷s kryptis. Raktiniai žodžiai: socialinis poveikis, technologin÷ inovacija, metodologija.

poveikio įsisąmoninimo lygis (ar individas/visuomen÷ yra įsisąmoninęs/yra informuotas apie technologin÷s inovacijos galimybes ir gr÷smes); • poveikio kontrol÷s lygis (kiek veikiamas subjektas (individas, organizacija, visuomen÷) gali kontroliuoti technologin÷s inovacijos poveikį); • prognozuojamumo laipsnis (ar technologinių inovacijų pasekm÷s yra prognozuojamos, kokie atsiskleidžia nenumatyti šalutiniai efektai); • poveikio produktyvumas (ar technologinių inovacijų sukelti pokyčiai yra produktyvūs ar destruktyvūs); • technologin÷s inovacijos sklaidos stadija (technologin÷s inovacijos sklaidos tolygumas, sinerginis efektas); • poveikio akivaizdumas (ar technologin÷s inovacijos poveikis yra akivaizdus ar užsl÷ptas). Inovacijos poveikio pobūdį apibūdinantys indikatoriai yra glaudžiai susiję su konkrečių technologinių inovacijų priimtinumu/atmetimu visuomen÷je. Siekiant atskleisti socialin÷s aplinkos/sistemos pokyčius, prasminga struktūruoti ir atlikti analizę keliais lygmenimis: pokyčių makro-, mezoir mikrolygmenimis analiz÷; rizikos ir naudos, galimybių, kurias atveria naujos technologijos, analiz÷; rizikų bei naudų pasiskirstymo analiz÷; poveikių skirtinguose sektoriuose analiz÷. Makrolygmeniu socialinio poveikio vertinimas vykdomas remiantis socialinių rodiklių sistemomis. Funkciniu požiūriu rodiklių sistemos tikslas yra „optimaliai agreguoti (apibendrinti) informaciją“. Rodikliai čia suprantami kaip statistiniai duomenys, kurie ypač svarbūs siekiant gauti daugiau informacijos. Poveikio analiz÷ n÷ra tik socialinių statistinių duomenų iš įvairių šaltinių surinkimas. Tokia analiz÷ akcentuoja šių duomenų sisteminimą konkrečios technologin÷s inovacijos socialinio poveikio dabartinei pad÷čiai įvertinti. Socialin÷s aplinkos makropokyčiams įvertinti pasitelkiamos nacionalinio ir tarptautinio lygio įvairių socialinių rodiklių sistemos. Technologinių inovacijų socialinio poveikio tyrimas tur÷tų remtis mišrių metodų metodologine prieiga, taikyti metodų ir duomenų šaltinių trianguliaciją, remtis jau egzistuojančiais duomenimis (kai tik įmanoma). Kiekvienos technologin÷s inovacijos socialinio poveikio vertinimą •

First received: January, 2008 Accepted for publication: March, 2008

80