Technology theory and deliberative democracy

Science Technology and Human Values

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 112-140

  Hamlett, Patrick W ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037239205     PISSN: 01622439     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0162243902238498     Document Type: Review

References (89)

1. Aibar, E. 1996. The evaluative relevance of social studies of technology. Society for Philosophy and Technology 1 (3/4). Available from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v1_n3n4/Aibar.html.
2. Andersen, I.-E., and B. Jæger. 1999. Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: Towards more democratic decision-making. Science and Public Policy 26 (5): 331-40.
3. Archibugi, D., D. Held, and M. Köhler, eds. 1998. Re-imagining political community: Studies in cosmopolitan democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
4. Armour, A. 1995. The citizens' jury model of public participation: A critical evaluation. In Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse, edited by O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, 175-88. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
5. Barber, B. R. 1995. Jihad vs. McWorld: How the planet is both falling apart and coming together and what this means for democracy. New York: Times Books.
6. Benhabib, S., ed. 1996. Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7. Bijker, W. E. 1993. Do not despair: There is life after constructivism. Science, Technology, & Human Values 18(1): 113-38.
8. _. 1995. Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. _. 1999. Democratization of technology, who are the experts? Unpublished manuscript.
10. Bijker, W. E., and K. Bijsterveld. 2000. Women walking through plans: Technology, democracy, and gender identity. Technology and Culture 41 (3): 485-515.
11. Bohman, J. 1996. Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. _. 1998. Survey article: The coming of age of deliberative democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy 6 (4): 400-25.
13. Button, M., and K. Mattson. 1999. Deliberative democracy in practice: Challenges and prospects for civic deliberation. Polity 31 (4): 609-37.
14. Cohen, J., and J. Rogers. 1983. On democracy: Toward a transformation of American society. New York: Penguin.
15. Cohen, J., and C. Sabel. 1997. Directly-deliberative polyarchy. European Law Journal 3 (4): 313-42.
16. Crosby, N. 1995. Citizens juries: One solution for difficult environmental questions. In Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. edited by O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, 157-74. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
17. Dahl, R. A. 1956. A preface to democratic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18. _. 1967. Pluralist democracy in the United States: Conflict and consent. Chicago: Rand McNally.
19. _. 1982. Dilemmas of pluralist democracy: Autonomy vs. control. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
20. Davidow, W. H., and M. S. Malone. 1992. The virtual corporation: Structuring and revitalizing the corporation for the 21st century. New York: HarperCollins.
21. deLeon, P. 1990. Participatory policy analysis: Prescriptions and precautions. Asian Journal of Public Administration 12:29-54.
22. _. 1997. Democracy and the policy science. Albany: State University of New York Press.
23. Doble, J. 1995. Public opinion about issues characterized by technological complexity and scientific uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science 4:95-118.
24. Dryzek, J. S. 1990. Discursive democracy: Politics, policy and political science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25. _. 1996. Democracy in capitalist times: Ideals, limits, and struggles. New York: Oxford University Press.
26. Durant, J. 1999. Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Science and Public Policy 26 (5): 313-20.
27. Dürrenberger, G. 1999. Integrated assessment focus groups: Bridging the gap between science and policy? Science and Public Policy 26 (5): 341-50.
28. Elster, J., ed. 1998. Deliberative democracy. Cambridge studies in the theory of democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29. Falk, R. 1999. Predatory globalization: A critique. Cambridge. UK: Polity.
30. Fischer, F. 1993. Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sciences 26:165-87.
31. _. 1999. Technological deliberation in a democratic society: The case for participatory inquiry. Science and Public Policy 26 (5): 294-302.
32. Fischer, F., and H. Forester, eds. 1993. The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
33. Fishkin, J. S. 1991. Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
34. _. 1995. The voice of the people: Public opinion and democracy. New Haven. CT: Yale University Press.
35. Fuller, S. 1988. Social epistemology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
36. Giere, R. N. 1993. Science and technology studies: Prospects for an enlightened postmodern synthesis. Science, Technology, & Human Values 18 (1): 102-12.
37. Gilbert, A. 1999. Must global politics constrain democracy? Great-power realms, democratic peace, and democratic internationalism. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press.
38. Grint, K., and S. Woolgar. 1997. The machine at work: Technology, work and organization. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
39. Guston, D. H. 1999. Evaluating the first U.S. consensus conference: The impact of the citizens panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science, Technology, & Human Values 24 (4): 451-82.
40. Gutmann, A., and D. Thompson. 1996. Democracy and disagreement: Why moral conflict cannot be avoided in politics, and what should be done about it. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41. Held, D. 1995. Democracy and the global order: From the modern state to cosmopolitan governance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
42. _. 1998. Democracy and globalization. In Re-imagining political community: Studies in cosmopolitan democracy, edited by D. Archibugi, D. Held, and M. Köhler, 11-27. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
43. Hennen, L. 1999. Participatory technology assessment: A response to technical modernity? Science and Public Policy 26 (5): 303-12.
44. Hoffman, T. 1998. Rationality reconceived: The mass electorate and democratic theory. Critical Review 12 (4): 459-80.
45. Horning, G. 1999. Citizens' panels as a form of deliberative technology assessment. Science and Public Policy 26 (5): 351-60.
46. Hughes, T. P. 1987. The evolution of large technological systems. In The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology, edited by W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, and T. J. Pinch, 51-82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47. Huntington, S. P. 1996. The clash of civilizations: Remaking of world order. New York: Touchstone Books.
48. Joerges, B. 1999. Do politics have artefacts? Social Studies of Science 29 (3): 411-31.
49. Joss, S., and A. Brownlea. 1999. Considering the concept of procedural justice for public policy-and decision-making in science and technology. Science and Public Policy 26 (5): 321-30.
50. Joss, S., and J. Durant, eds. 1995a. Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.
51. _. 1995b. The U.K. national consensus conference on plant biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 4:195-204.
52. Lindblom, C. E. 1959. The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review 14:79-88.
53. _. 1965. The intelligence of democracy. New York: Free Press.
54. Lowrance, W. W. 1976. Of acceptable risk: Science and the determination of safety. Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann.
55. Macedo, S. 1999. Introduction. In Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement, edited by S. Macedo, 3-16. New York: Oxford University Press.
56. Martin, B. 1996. Sticking a needle into science: The case of polio vaccines and the origin of AIDS. Social Studies of Science 26 (2): 245-76.
57. Mayer, I. 1997. Debating technologies: A methodological contribution to the design and evaluation of participatory policy analysis. Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
58. Mayer, I., J. de Vries, and J. Geuris. 1995. An evaluation of the effects of participation in a consensus conference. In Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe, edited by S. Joss and J. Durant, 109-24. London: Science Museum.
59. Miller, H. I. 2000. Combating pathological opposition to gene splicing. Chronicle of Higher Education 46:B8.
60. Morone, J. G., and E. J. Woodhouse. 1986. Averting catastrophe: Strategies for regulating risky technologies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
61. Nelkin, D., ed. 1985. The language of risk. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
62. Nino, C. S. 1996. The constitution of deliberative democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
63. Pelletier, D., V. Kraak, C. McCullum, U. Uusitalo, and R. Rich. 1999. The shaping of collective values through deliberative democracy: An empirical study from New York's North Country. Policy Sciences 32:103-31.
64. Piller, C. 1991. The fail-safe society: Community defiance and the end of American technological optimism. New York: Basic Books.
65. Radder, H. 1996. In and about the world: Philosophical studies of science and technology. Albany: State University of New York Press.
66. Rawls, J. 1999. The idea of public reason revisited. In John Rawls: Collected papers, edited by S. Freeman, 573-615. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
67. Rehg, W., and J. Bohman. 1996. Survey article: Discourse and democracy: The formal and informal bases of legitimacy in Habermas' Faktizität und Geltung. Journal of Political Philosophy 4 (1): 79-99.
68. Renn, O., T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, eds. 1995. Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
69. Richards, Evelleen, and M. Ashmore. 1996. More sauce please! The politics of SSK: Neutrality, commitment and beyond. Social Studies of Science 26 (2): 219-28.
70. Rowe, G., and L. J. Frewer. 2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values 25 (1): 3-29.
71. Sclove, R. E. 1995. Democracy and technology. The Conduct of Science Series. New York: Guilford.
72. _. 1999. Democratic politics of technology: The missing half: Using democratic criteria in participatory technology decisions. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved 20 September 1999 from http://www.loka.org/idt/intro.htm.
73. Scott, P., E. Richards, and B. Martin. 1990. Captives of controversy: The myth of the neutral social researcher in contemporary scientific controversies. Science, Technology, & Human Values 15 (4): 474-94.
74. Segal, H. H. 1989. Corporate makeover: The reshaping of the American economy. New York: Viking.
75. Shrader-Frechette, K. S. 1991. Risk and rationality: Philosophical foundations for populist reforms. Berkeley: University of California Press.
76. Smith, G., and C. Wales. 1999. The theory and practice of citizens' juries. Policy & Politics 27 (3): 295-308.
77. Somin, I. 1998. Voter ignorance and the democratic ideal. Critical Review 12 (4): 413-58.
78. Steuerle, C. E., E. M. Gramlich, H. Heclo, and D. S. Nightingale. 1998. The government we deserve: Responsive democracy and changing expectations, Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
79. Trigg, R., S. I. Anderson, and E. Dykstra-Erickson, eds. 1994. PDC '94: Proceedings of the participatory design conference (27-28 October). Chapel Hill, NC: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.
80. Wildavsky, A. 1988. Searching for safety. New Brunswick, CT: Transaction Books.
81. Winner, L. 1980. Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus 109:121-36.
82. _. 1992. Citizen virtues in a technological order. In Humanistic perspectives on technology, development and environment, edited by F. Sejersted and I. Moser, 121-48. TMV report series no. 3. Oslo. Norway: Centre for Technology and Culture, University of Oslo.
83. _. 1993. Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values 18 (3): 362-78.
84. Woodhouse, E. J. 1987. Decision theory and the governance of technology. Teaching Political Science: Politics in Perspective 14 (4): 171-77.
85. _. 1988. Sophisticated trial-and-error in decision making about risk. In Technology and politics, edited by M. E. Kraft and N. J. Vig, 208-26. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
86. Woolgar, S. 1991. The turn to technology in the social studies of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values 16(1): 20-50.
87. _. 1999. Do artefacts have ambivalence? Moses' bridges, Winner's bridges and other urban legends in S&TS. Social Studies of Science 29 (3): 433-49.
88. Woolgar, S., and K. Grint. 1996. A further decisive refutation of the assumption that political action depends on the "truth" and a suggestion that we need to go beyond this level of debate - Reply. Science, Technology, & Human Values 21 (3): 354-57.
89. Young, I. M. 1997. Difference as a resource for democratic communication. In Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics, edited by J. Bohman and W. Rehg, 383-406. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.