Questioning 'Participation': A Critical Appraisal of its Conceptualization in a Flemish Participatory Technology Assessment

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 673-690

  van Oudheusden, Michiel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Discourse; Nanotechnology; Participatory technology assessment; Power

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BELGIUM; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CONCEPT FORMATION; CONSENSUS; CONSUMER; COOPERATION; HUMAN; LEARNING; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

BELGIUM; CONCEPT FORMATION; CONSENSUS; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; LEARNING; NANOTECHNOLOGY; SOCIAL VALUES; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 83855164093     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 16605454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-011-9313-z     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Abels, G. (2007). Citizen involvement in public policy-making: Does it improve democratic legitimacy and accountability? The case of pTA. Interdisciplinary Information Sciences, 13(1), 103-116.
2. Bijker, W. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites and bulbs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Deblonde, M., van Oudheusden, M., Evers, J., & Goorden, L. (2008). Co-creating nano-imaginaries. Bulletin of Science and Technology, 28(5), 372-389.
4. Dewulf, A. (2005). Issue framing in multi-actor contexts. How people make sense of issues through negotiating meaning, enacting discourse and doing differences. Ph. D. dissertation, K. U. Leuven.
5. Dewulf, A., Craps, M., & Dercon, G. (2004). How issues get framed and reframed when different communities meet: A multi-level analysis of a collaborative soil conservation initiative in the Ecuadorian Andes. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14, 177-192.
6. Dryzek, J. (1990). Discursive democracy. Politics, policy and political science. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
7. Dryzek, J. & Niemeyer, S. (2003). Pluralism and consensus in political deliberation. Paper for the 2003 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, August 28-31.
8. Dryzek, J., & Niemeyer, S. (2006). Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 634-649.
9. Epstein, S. (1995). The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology & Human Values, 20(4), 408-437.
10. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
11. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy. Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Habermas and foucault: Thinkers for civil society? British Journal of Sociology, 49(2), 210-233.
13. Foucault, M. (1976). Histoire de la sexualité. La volonté de savoir. Paris: Galimard.
14. Foucault, M. (1977). Language counter-memory practice (D. F. Bouchard & S. Simon, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.
15. Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
16. Genus, A., & Coles, A. M. (2005). On constructive technology assessment and limitations on public participation in technology assessment. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 17(4), 433-443.
17. Gilbert, N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora's box: A sociological analysis of scientists' discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. Hardmondsworth: Penguin books.
19. Goorden, L., van Oudheusden, M., Evers, J., & Deblonde, M. (2008a). Nanotechnologies for tomorrow's society: A case for reflective action research in Flanders, Belgium. In E. Fisher, C. Selin, & J. Wetmore (Eds.), Presenting futures. Yearbook of nanotechnology in society (Vol. 1, pp. 163-182). Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business Media.
20. Goorden, L., van Oudheusden, M., Evers, J., & Deblonde, M. (2008b). Lose one another and find one another in nanospace. 'Nanotechnologies for tomorrow's society: A case for reflective action research in flanders (NanoSoc)'. Nanoethics, 2(3), 213-230.
21. Grin, J., & van de Graaf, H. (1996a). Implementation as communicative action. An interpretive understanding of interactions between policy actors and target groups. Policy Sciences, 29, 291-319.
22. Grin, J., & van de Graaf, H. (1996b). Technology assessment as learning. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21(1), 72-99.
23. Grin, J., van de Graaf, H., & Hoppe, R. (1997). Interactive technology assessment. Een eerste gids voor wie het wagen wil. Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut.
24. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage.
25. Guston, D. H. (1998). Evaluating the impact of the first US citizens' panel on 'Telecommunications and the future of democracy.' Paper for the 1998 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, September 3-6.
26. Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1-2), 93-109.
27. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.
28. Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse. Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29. Hronzsky, I. (2001). Toward "lay" participation and co-operative learning in TA, technology policy and construction of technologies. In M. Decker (Ed.), Interdisciplinarity in technology assessment. Implementation and its chances and limits (Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung; Bd. 11) (pp. 95-122). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
30. Jasanoff, S. (2002). Citizens at risk: Cultures of modernity in the US and EU. Science as Culture, 11(3), 363-380.
31. Johnson, J. (1998). Arguing for deliberation: Some skeptical considerations. In J. Elster (Ed.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 161-184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Joss, S. (1995). Evaluating consensus conferences: Necessity or luxury? In S. Joss & J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe (pp. 89-108). London: The Science Museum.
33. Joy, B. (2000). Why the future doesn't need us. Wired, 8, 238-262.
34. Laurent, B. (2007). Engaging the public in nanotechnology? Competing meanings of public engagement. Paper presented at the Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Santa Barbara, CA.
35. Laurent, B., & Fisher, E. (2008). Integration discourses: Neo-determinism, reflexivity, and the mainstreaming of science studies. Unpublished manuscript.
36. Leeuwis, C. (2000). Voorbij het onderscheid tussen experts en leken. Over de rol en betekenis van expertise in participatieve processen. Pedagogiek, 20(4), 347-361.
37. Lewenstein, B. V. (2003). Models of public communication of science and technology. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 1-11.
38. Lorenzet, A. (2008). Closure throughUnclosure. A perspective on the role of conflict in the study of technological controversies. Paper for the science and technology in society conference, Washington, DC, April 5-6.
39. Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication, 27(2), 1-24.
40. Mayer, I. (1997). Debating technologies. A methodological contribution to the design and evaluation of participatory policy analysis. Ph. D. dissertation, Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
41. McKenzie, P. J. (2005). Interpretative repertoires. In K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez, & E. F. Lynne McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 221-224). Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.
42. Moss, P., & Schutz, A. (2001). Educational standards, assessment, and the search for consensus. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 37-70.
43. Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. London: Verso.
44. Nowotny, H. (2005). Experten, expertisen und imaginierte Laien. In A. Bogner & H. Togersen (Eds.), Wozu experten? Ambivalenzen der Beziehung zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik (pp. 33-44). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
45. NPD (Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow's Society Project Description). (2005). 50 pp.
46. Phillips, L., & Jorgensen, M. W. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage.
47. Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14, 391-441.
48. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1995). Discourse analysis. In J. A. Smith, R. Harré, & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 80-92). London: Sage.
49. Rienstra, B., & Hook, D. (2006). Weakening Habermas: The undoing of communicative rationality. Politikon, 33(3), 313-339.
50. Rip, A. (1986). Controversies as informal technology assessment. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8(2), 349-371.
51. Rip, A. (2000). Following actors-Then what? Invited paper for the Seminar Neuere Ansätze und Methoden in der Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung, Technische Universität Darmstadt, May 5.
52. Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53. Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 54(2&3), 251-268.
54. Stirling, A. (2006). Resolving environmental conflicts: Combining participation and multi-criteria analysis. Land Use Policy, 23(1), 95-107.
55. Stirling, A. (2008). "Opening up" and "closing down". Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33(2), 262-294.
56. Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, 273-286.
57. Swierstra, T., & Rip, A. (2007). Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics, 1(1), 3-20.
58. Tutton, R. (2007). Constructing participation in genetic databases. Citizenship, governance, and ambivalence. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 32(2), 172-195.
59. van den Hoonard, W. (1997). Working with sensitizing concepts. Analytical field research. London: Sage.
60. van den Hove, S. (2006). Between consensus and compromise: Acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches. Land Use Policy, 23(1), 10-17.
61. van Oudheusden, M., Evers, J., Deblonde, M., & Goorden, L. (2007). "Nano-imaginaries" in a future smart environment. Breakdown of a Three Round Delphi Study. Report written for the Flemish Institute for the Advancement of Innovation through Science and Technology (IWT), Belgium, 49 pp.
62. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63. West, T. (1996). Beyond dissensus: Exploring the heuristic value of conflict. Rhetoric Review, 15(1), 142-155.
64. Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1988). Discourse analysis and the identification of interpretive repertoires. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 168-183). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
65. Wilhelmson, L. (2002). On the theory of transformative learning. In A. Bron & M. Schemmann (Eds.), Social science theories in adult education research (Bochum Studies in International Education; 3) (pp. 180-210). Münster: LIT.
66. Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis. Methods for studying action in talk and text. London: Sage.