Collingridge Dilemma

The dilemma

Collingridge (1980) summarized the dilemma this way: when change is easy, the need for it cannot be foreseen; when the need for change is apparent, change has become expensive, difficult and time-consuming. He divided it into two problems. The first is an information problem: the social consequences of a technology cannot easily be predicted before it is widely developed and used. The second is a power problem: once a technology is established, accumulated equipment, skills and vested interests make it hard to control. Collingridge argued that rather than trying to predict the future accurately, we should value keeping decisions corrigible, preserving the flexibility to detect and correct mistakes. In The Management of Scale (1992), he later argued that big organizations and large-scale technological decisions reduce this corrigibility. Liebert and Schmidt (2010) reformulated the dilemma from the perspective of the philosophy of science.

Technological lock-in and path dependence

The power problem connects to lock-in theory in the economics of technology. David (1985) argued that the QWERTY keyboard layout became entrenched as a standard because of early choices and technical interrelatedness, despite claims that more efficient alternatives existed. Arthur (1989) showed with a model that in markets for competing technologies with increasing returns, chance early events can lock in one technology. This is at the core of the concept of path dependence. In Do Artifacts Have Politics?, Winner (1980) argued that social choices and power relations are built into technological designs, and that once built, technologies sustain those effects for a long time. Beck's (1992) account of the risk society also echoes the Collingridge dilemma, since the risks produced by modern technologies are hard to predict and hard to control after the fact.

Responses to the dilemma

The Collingridge dilemma has inspired several approaches to technology governance. The constructive technology assessment of Rip, Misa and Schot (1995) sought to bring diverse social actors into the process of building technologies, so that impacts are considered from the design stage. Guston and Sarewitz (2002) proposed real-time technology assessment, which evaluates social impacts alongside research and development, and Guston (2014) developed this into anticipatory governance, centered on foresight, engagement and integration. Stilgoe, Owen and Macnaghten (2013) offered a framework for responsible research and innovation built on four dimensions: anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and responsiveness. Genus and Stirling (2018) reinterpreted Collingridge as emphasizing not mere unpredictability but problems of power and accountability. Using the case of Google Glass, Kudina and Verbeek (2019) showed that technologies change values such as privacy in the course of use, rereading the dilemma in terms of the mutual shaping of technology and values.

FAQ

What is the Collingridge dilemma in simple terms?

A new technology is easy to change at first, but nobody knows what its effects will be. By the time the effects are clear, it has spread so widely that changing it is hard. The social impact of social media is often cited as a leading example.

How did Collingridge suggest dealing with the dilemma?

Collingridge argued that rather than trying to predict the future precisely, it is more important to keep decisions flexible and correctable, so mistakes can be fixed when they come to light. His work later fed into ideas such as anticipatory governance and responsible research and innovation.

Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26

References

1. Collingridge, D. (1980). The Social Control of Technology. London: Frances Pinter.
2. Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.
3. David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75(2), 332–337.
4. Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Economic Journal, 99(394), 116–131.
5. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
6. Collingridge, D. (1992). The Management of Scale: Big Organizations, Big Decisions, Big Mistakes. London: Routledge.
7. Rip, A., Misa, T. J., & Schot, J. (Eds.). (1995). Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Pinter.
8. Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1–2), 93–109.
9. Liebert, W., & Schmidt, J. C. (2010). Collingridge's dilemma and technoscience: An attempt to provide a clarification from the perspective of the philosophy of science. Poiesis & Praxis, 7(1–2), 55–71.
10. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580.
11. Guston, D. H. (2014). Understanding 'anticipatory governance'. Social Studies of Science, 44(2), 218–242.
12. Genus, A., & Stirling, A. (2018). Collingridge and the dilemma of control: Towards responsible and accountable innovation. Research Policy, 47(1), 61–69.
13. Kudina, O., & Verbeek, P.-P. (2019). Ethics from within: Google Glass, the Collingridge dilemma, and the mediated value of privacy. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 44(2), 291–314.