A democracy paradox in studies of science and technology

Science Technology and Human Values

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 474-496

  Lövbrand, Eva ^a   Pielke Jr , Roger ^b   Beck, Silke ^c  

^a LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^c HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

deliberation; democratization; expertise; legitimacy; studies of science and technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 79958205299     PISSN: 01622439     EISSN: 15528251     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0162243910366154     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Abelson, J., P.G. Forest, J. Eyles, P. Smith, E. Matin, and F.P. Gauvin. 2003. Deliberation about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science and Medicine 57:239-51.
2. Bäckstrand, K., J. Khan, A. Kronsell, and E. Lövbrand., ed. 2010. Environmental politics and deliberative democracy: Examining the promise of new modes of governance. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
3. Baber, W., and R. Bartlett. 2005. Deliberative environmental politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Benhabib, S. 1996a. Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political, ed. S. Benhabib. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5. Benhabib, S., ed. 1996b. Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6. Bernstein, S. 2005. Legitimacy in global environmental governance. Journal of International Law and International Relations 1:139-66.
7. Block, A. 2007. Experts on public trial: On democratizing expertise through a Danish consensus conference. Public Understanding of Science 16:163-82.
8. Bohman, J. 2000. Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Brown, M.B. 2009. Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions, and representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Burgess, J., A. Stirling, J. Clark, G. Davies, M. Eames, and K. Staley. 2007. Deliberative mapping: A novel analytical-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions. Public Understanding of Science 16: 299-322.
11. Button, M., and D.M. Ryfe. 2005. What can we learn from the practice of deliberative democracy? In The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the 21st century, ed. J. Gastil and P. Levine. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12. Cohen, J. 1989. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In The good polity: Normative analysis of the state, ed. A. Hamlin and P. Pettit. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
13. Cohen, J. 1996. Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political, ed. S. Benhabib. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14. Crosby, N., and D. Nethercut. 2005. Citizen juries: Creating a trustworthy voice of the people. In The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the 21st century, ed. J. Gastil and P. Levine. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15. Davies, G., and J. Burgess. 2004. Challenging the 'view from nowhere:' Citizen reflections on specialist expertise in deliberative process. Health & Place 10:349-61.
16. Dryzek, J.S. 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics and contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Dryzek, J.S. 2001. Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Political Theory 29:651-69.
18. Dryzek, J.S. 2007. Theory, evidence and the tasks of deliberation. In Can the people govern? Deliberation, participation and democracy, ed. S. W. Rosenberg. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
19. Eckersley, R. 2004. The green state: Rethinking democracy and sovereignty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. Eurobarometer. 2005a. Europeans, science and technology. Special Eurobarometer 224, Directorate General Research, European Commission.
21. Eurobarometer. 2005b. Social values, science and technology. Special Eurobaromter 225. Directorate General Research, European Commission.
22. Eurobarometer. 2007. Scientific research in the media. Special Eurobarometer 282, Directorate General for Research, European Commission.
23. Evans, R., and H. Collins. 2008. Expertise: From attribute to attribution and back again? In The handbook of science and technology, ed. E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
24. Felt, U., and B. Wynne. 2007. Taking European knowledge society seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate. Directorate General for Research, European Commission.
25. Fischer, F. 2005. Citizens, experts, and the environment. Durham: Duke University Press.
26. Funtowicz, S.O., and J.R. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25:739-55.
27. Gastil, J., and W.M. Keith. 2005. A nation that (sometimes) likes to talk: A brief history of public deliberation in the United States. In The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the 21st century, ed. J. Gastil and P. Levine. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
28. Guston, D.H. 1999. Evaluating the first U.S. Consensus Conference: The impact of the citizen's panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science, Technology and Human Values 24:451-82.
29. Gutmann, A., and D. Thompson. 1996. Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30. Gutmann, A., and D. Thompson. 2004. Why deliberative democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
31. Hagendijk, R., and A. Irwin. 2006. Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva 44:167-84.
32. Hajer, M., and H. Wagenaar. 2003. Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33. Hicks, D. 2002. The promise(s) of deliberative democracy. Rhetoric & Public Affairs 5:223-60.
34. Irwin, A. 1995. Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge.
35. Irwin, A. 2001. Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10:1-18.
36. Jasanoff, S. 2005. Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
37. Jasanoff, S. 2007. 'Let them eat cake': GM foods and the democratic imagination. In Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement, ed. M. Leach, I. Scoones, and B. Wynne. London: Zed Books.
38. King, L.A. 2003. Deliberation, legitimacy, and multilateral democracy. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 16:23-50.
39. Kleinman, D.L. 2001. Democratizations of science and technology. In Science, technology and democracy, ed. D. Kleinmann. Albany: State University of New York Press.
40. Kleinman, D.L., M. Powell, J. Grice, J. Adrian, and C. Lobes. 2007. A toolkit for democratizing science and technology policy: The practical mechanics of organizing a consensus conference. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 27:154-68.
41. Knight, J., and J. Johnson. 1994. Aggregation and deliberation: On the possibility of democratic legitimacy. Political Theory 22:277-96.
42. Leach, M., I. Scoones, and B. Wynne. 2007. Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement. London: Zed Books.
43. Liberatore, A., and S. Funtowicz. 2003. Introduction: "democratising" expertise, "expertising" democracy:" What does this mean, and why bother? Science and Public Policy 30:146-50.
44. Maasen, S., and P. Weingart, ed. 2005. Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook. Vol. 24. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
45. Marris, C., J. Pierre-Benoit, and A. Rip. 2008. Interactive technology assessment in the real world: Dual dynamics in an iTA exercise on genetically modified vines. Science, Technology and Human Values 33:77-100.
46. Mouffe, C. 1999. Deliberative democracy or agnostic pluralism? Social Research 66:745-59.
47. National Science Board (NSB). 2008. Science and engineering indicators 2008. Vol. 1. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
48. Nishizawa, M. 2005. Citizen deliberations on science and technology and their social environments: Case study on the Japanese Consensus Conference on GMO crops. Science and Public Policy 32:479-89.
49. Nowotny, H. 2003. Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy 30:151-6.
50. Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. 2002. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
51. Parkinson, J. 2003. Legitimacy problems in deliberative democracy. Political Studies 51:180-96.
52. Pellizzoni, L. 2001. The myth of the best argument: Power, deliberation and reason. British Journal of Sociology 52:59-86.
53. Phillips, A. 1996. Dealing with difference: A politics of ideas, or a politics of presence? In Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political, ed. S. Benhabib. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
54. Powell, M.C., and M. Colin, 2009. Participatory paradoxes: Facilitating citizen engagement in science and technology from the top-down? Bulletin of Science Technology Society 29:325-42.
55. Rosenau, J., and E.O. Czempiel. 1992. Governance without government: Order and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56. Rowe, G., and L.J. Frewer. 2004. Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology & Human Values 29:512-56.
57. Rowe, G., R. Marsh, and L.J. Frewer. 2004. Evaluation of a deliberative conference. Science, Technology and Human Values 29:88-121.
58. Sclove, R.E. 2001. Town meetings on technology. Consensus conferences as democratic participation. In Science, technology and democracy, ed. D. Kleinmann. Albany: State University of New York Press.
59. Smith, G. 2003. Deliberative democracy and the environment. London: Routledge.
60. Steffek, J. 2003. The legitimation of international governance: A discourse approach. European Journal of International Relations 9:249-75.
61. Stilgoe, J., A. Irwin, and K. Jones. 2006. The received wisdom: Opening up expert advice. Demos Report. http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/receivedwisdom (accessed January 3, 2009).
62. Stirling, A. 2008. 'Opening up' and 'closing down': Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology, science. Technology and Human Values 33:262-94.
63. Weingart, P. 2008. How robust is "socially robust knowledge"? In The challenge of the social and the pressure of practice: Science and values revisited, ed. M. Carrier, D. Howard, and J. Kourany, 131-145. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
64. Wilsdon, J., and R. Willis. 2004. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos Report. http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/paddlingupstream (accessed January 3, 2009).
65. Wynne, B. 1992. Uncertainty and environmental learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environmental Change 2:111-27.
66. Wynne, B. 2002. Seasick or the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism: Response to Collins & Evans (2002). Social Studies of Science 33:401-7.
67. Wynne, B. 2007. Risk as globalizing 'democratic' discourse? Framing subjects and citizens. In Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement, ed. M. Leach, I. Scoones, and B. Wynne. London: Zed Books.
68. Young, I.M. 1996. Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy. In Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political, ed. S. Benhabib. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
69. Young, I.M. 2003. Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. In Debating deliberative democracy, ed. J. S. Fishkin and P. Laslett. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.