Technology Roadmaps, Innovation Journeys, and Nanoworld: A Spatio-temporal Consolidation of the EC Nanotechnology Policy
By: Pavel Kotlík
References
- Amato, I. (1999). Nanotechnology – Shaping the World Atom by Atom. National Science and Technology Council, Washington: Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology.
- Åm, Heidrun. (2013). ‘Don’t make nanotechnology sexy, ensure its benefits, and be neutral’: Studying the logics of new intermediary institutions in ambiguous governance contexts. Science and Public Policy. vol. 40 (4), 466–478.
- Barker, D. and Smith, D.J.H. (1995). Technology Foresight Using Roadmaps. Long Range Planning, 28(2), 21–28.
- Berker, T., and Throndsen, W. (2017). Planning story lines in smart grid road maps (2010–2014): three types of maps for coordinated time travel, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 19(2), 214–228.
- Brown, N., and Michael, M. (2003). A Sociology of Expectations: Retrospecting Prospects and Prospecting Retrospects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(1), 3–18.
- Cameron, L. (1999). Operationalizing Metaphor for Applied Linguistic Research. In L. Cameron and G. Low (Eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor (pp. 3–28), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Campbell, J. (1949). The Hero with a Thousand Faces. 3rd ed. Novato, Calif: New World Library.
- Ceccarelli, L. (2013). On the Frontier of Science: An American Rhetoric of Exploration and Exploitation (Michigan State UP, 2013).
- Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Charteris-Black, J. (2011). Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Chilton, P.A. and Ilyin, M. (1993). Metaphor in Political Discourse: The Case of the ‘Common European House’. Discourse and Society, 4(1), 7–31.
- Chilton, P. A. and Schäffner, C. (2002). Politics as Text and Talk. Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Chilton, P. A. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. Psychology Press.
- Crichton, M. (2003). Prey. New York: HarperCollins.
- Edgerton, D. (2006). The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History since 1900. New York: Oxford University Press.
- ETC Group. (2005). Special Report – NanoGeoPolitics: ETC Group Surveys the Political Landscape NanoGeoPolitics. ETC Group Special Report – Communiqué, July/August 2005, No. 89.
- EuroBarometer. (2010). Biotechnology Report. Special Eurobarometer 341 / Wave 73.1 – TNS Opinion & Social. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf (August 2016).
- European Commission. (1995). Green Paper on Innovation. Commission of the European Communities. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
- European Commission. (2004). Communication from the Commission – Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology. Directorate-General for Research Communication Unit. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. URL: https://cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/nano_com_en_new.pdf (August 2016).
- European Commission. (2005). Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: An Action Plan for Europe 2005–2009. Community Research and Development Information Service. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
- European Commission. (2006). Exploring the Nano-World: Leading EU Research in Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies. Community Research and Development Information Service. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
- European Commission. (2010a). Communicating Nanotechology: Why, to Whom, Saying What and How? Directorate-General for Research Communication Unit. URL: https://cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/communicating-nanotechnology_en.pdf (August 2016).
- European Commission. (2010b). Europe 2020: Commission proposes new economic strategy. Directorate-General for Research Communication Unit. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/president/news/documents/pdf/20100303_1_en.pdf (August 2016).
- European Commission. (2010c). A Rationale For Action: Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative – Innovation Union (Accompanying Document). Innovation Union: Transforming Europe through Research and Innovation. COM(2010) 546.
- European Commission. (2011). Regulation of The European Parliament and of the Council: Establishing Horizon 2020 – The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014–2020). Directorate-General for Research Communication Unit. COM(2011) 809 final.
- European Commission (2017). Synergy Grants: Criteria. ERC Executive Agency. URL: https://erc.europa.eu/funding/synergy-grants (October 2017).
- Feynman, R. P. (1959). There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom. A Reprint of the Talk (February 1960), Engineering and Science (23), 22–36.
- Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge and The Discourse on Language. Pantheon Books: New York.
- Gilad, S. (2010). It Runs in the Family: Meta-Regulation and Its Siblings. Regulation and Governance, (4), 485–506.
- Gottweis, H. (1998). Governing Molecules: The Discursive Politics of Genetic Engineering in Europe and the United States. MIT Press.
- Greimas, A. J. (1966). Éléments pour une théorie de l’interprétation du récit mythique, Communications, 8(8), 28–59.
- Greimas, A. J. (1983). Structural Semantics: An Attempt at a Method. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
- Greimas, A. J. (1987). On meaning: selected writings in semiotic theory; translation by Paul J. Perron and Frank H. Collins; foreword by Frederic Jameson; introduction by Paul J. Perron.
- Greimas, A. J. and Courtés, J. (1982). Semiotics and Language: An Analytical Dictionary. Translation by Crist, L., Patte, D. et al. Bloomington: Indiana University Press (French edn 1979. Dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage. Paris: Hachette).
- Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press.
- Korzybski, A. (1933). Chapter IV: On Structure. In Schuchardt Read, C. (Ed.), Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics (1996).
- Kostoff, R. N., and R. R. Schaller. (2001). Science and Technology Roadmaps. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 48(2), 132–43.
- Kwiat, J. (2008). From Aristotle to Gabriel: A summary of the narratology literature for story technologies. Technical Report, KMI-08-01. Milton Keynes: Knowledge Media Institute, Open University.
- Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University Of Chicago Press.
- Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, A. (ed.) Metaphor and Thought (pp. 202–251), Cambridge University Press.
- Lente van, H., & Rip, A. (1998). Expectations in Technological Developments: an Example of Prospective Structures to be Filled in by Agency. In: Disco C., Meulen van der B.J.R. (editors). In N. C. Disco, & B. van der Meulen (Eds.), Getting New Technologies Together. Studies in Making Sociotechnical Order (pp. 203–231). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
- Lente van, H. (2000). Forceful futures: from promise to requirement. In Brown, N., Rappert, B., and Webster, A. (Eds.), Contested futures: A sociology of prospective Techno-science (pp. 43–63), Routledge.
- McDowall, W. (2012). Technology roadmaps for transition management: The case of hydrogen energy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(3), 530–542.
- McGee, M. C. (1980). The ‘ideograph’: A Link between Rhetoric and Ideology. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66(1), 1–16.
- Merton, R. K. (1948). The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. The Antioch Review, (8)2, 193–210.
- Mordini, E. (2007). The Narrative Dimension of Nanotechnology: Fabula and Story. Nanotechnology Perceptions, (3), 15–24.
- Musolff, A. (2004). Metaphor and Political Discourse. Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Nordmann, A. (2007). Design Choices in the Nanoworld: A Space Odyssey. In Marian Deblonde, Lieve Goorden, et al. (Eds.), Nano Researchers Facing Choices (pp. 13–30), The Dialogue Series Vol. 10, Antwerp: Universitair Centrum Sint-Ignatius Antwerpen.
- Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J. P. and Probert, D. R. (2004). Technology roadmapping – A Planning Framework for Evolution and Revolution. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71 (1–2), 5–26.
- Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J. P., and Probert, D. R. (2009). Visualising strategy: A classification of graphical road map forms. International Journal of Technology Management, 47(4), 286–305.
- Rip, A. (2006). Folk Theories of Nanotechnologists. Science as Culture, 15(4), 349–65.
- Rip, A. (2012). The context of innovation journeys. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(2), 158–170.
- Schön, D. (1993). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem setting in social policy. In: A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 137–163). Cambridge University Press (1st ed.1979).
- Schummer, J. (2004). Societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology: meanings, interest groups, and social dynamics. Techné, 8(2), 56–87.
- Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge University Press.
- Stokes, E. (2013). Demand for command: Responding to technological risks and scientific uncertainties. Medical Law Review, 21(1), 11–38.
- Suganami, H. (1996). On the Causes of War. Clarendon Press.
- Verbong, G. P. J., and Geels, F. W. (2010). Exploring sustainability transitions in the electricity sector with socio-technical pathways. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(8), 1214–1221.
- Wikberg, K. (2007). The role of corpus linguistics in metaphor research. In: Johanneson, N. L.; Minugh, D. (Ed.). Selected Papers from the 2006 and 2007 Stockholm Metaphor Festivals. Stockholm: Department of English, Stockholm University.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/cejpp-2018-0005 | Journal eISSN: 1802-4866
Language: English
Page range: 34 - 49
Submitted on: Jan 23, 2017
Accepted on: May 24, 2018
Published on: Feb 1, 2019
Published by: University of Matej Bel in Banska Bystrica, Faculty of Economics
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
Related subjects:
© 2019 Pavel Kotlík, published by University of Matej Bel in Banska Bystrica, Faculty of Economics
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.