Energy futures: Five dilemmas of the practice of anticipatory governance

Environmental Communication

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 119-136

  Davies, Sarah R ^a   Selin, Cynthia ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Anticipatory Governance; Deliberation; Energy; Nanotechnology; Public Participation; Reflexivity

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859176295     PISSN: 17524032     EISSN: 17524040     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2011.644632     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273-291. (Pubitemid 41700427)
2. Aitken, M. (2009). Wind power planning controversies and the construction of 'expert' and 'lay' knowledges. Science as Culture, 18(1), 47-64.
3. Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C., & Guston, D.H. (2008). Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 979-1000). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
5. Besley, J.C., & Tanner, A.H. (2011). What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate. Science Communication, 33(2), 239-263.
6. Brulle, R.J. (2010). From environmental campaigns to advancing the public dialog: Environmental communication for civic engagement. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 4(10), 82-98.
7. Burgess, J., Harrison, C.M., & Filius, P. (1998). Environmental communication and the cultural politics of environmental citizenship. Environment and Planning A, 30(8), 1445-1460. (Pubitemid 28444152)
8. Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6(1), 307-326. (Pubitemid 37395356)
9. Chilvers, J. (2008). Deliberating competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33(2) (March): 155-185.
10. Christens, B., & Speer, P.W. (2006). Tyranny/transformation: Power and paradox in participatory development. Qualitative Social Research, 7(2). Available from http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/91/ 189.
11. Collins, H.M. (2001). Tacit knowledge, trust, and the q of sapphire. Social Studies of Science, 31(1), 71-85.
12. Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? London: Zed Books.
13. Davies, S.R. (2009). Doing dialogue: Genre and flexibility in public engagement with science. Science as Culture, 18(4), 397-416.
14. Davies, S.R., Kearnes, M.B., & Macnaghten, P. (2010). Nanotechnology and public engagement: A new kind of (social) science? In K. Kjolberg & F. Wickson (Eds.), Nano meets macro (pp. 473-499). Singapore: Pan Stanford.
15. Davies, C., Wetherall, M., & Barnett, E. (2006). Citizens at the centre: Deliberative participation in healthcare decisions. Bristol: Policy Press.
16. Devine-Wright, P. (2007). Reconsidering public attitudes and public acceptance of renewable energy technologies: A critical review. Manchester: Manchester Architecture Research Centre, University of Manchester.
17. Dryzek, J.S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Elam, M., & Bertilsson, M. (2002). Consuming, engaging and confronting science: The emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. Europe: STAGE.
19. Endres, D. (2009). Science and public participation: An analysis of public scientific argument in the Yucca Mountain controversy. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 3(1), 49-75.
20. Fiorino, D.J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science. Technology & Human Values, 15(2), 226-243.
21. Goven, J. (2006). Processes of inclusion, cultures of calculation, structures of power: Scientific citizenship and the royal commission on genetic modification. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(5), 565-598. (Pubitemid 44219991)
22. Guston, D.H. (1999). Evaluating the first US consensus conference: The impact of the citizens' panel on telecommunications and the future democracy. Science, Technology & Human Values, 24(4), 451-482.
23. Guston, D.H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1), 93-109. (Pubitemid 34290508)
24. Hamlett, P.W., Cobb, M.D., & Guston, D.H. (2008). National citizens'technology forum: Nanotechnologies and humane enhancement. Arizona State University: The Center for Nanotechnology in Society.
25. Illich, I. (1973). Energy and equity. Le Monde. Available at http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/11/ energy-and-equity-by-ivanillich.html.
26. Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public resconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41, 223-244. (Pubitemid 41341976)
28. Laird, F.N. (1993). Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Science, Technology & Human Values, 18(3), 341-361.
29. Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M.B., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication, 27(2), 268-291. (Pubitemid 41795482)
30. Marres, N. (2007). The issues deserve more credit: Pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. Social Studies of Science, 37(5) (October 1): 759-780.
31. Martin, T. (2007). Muting the voice of the local in the age of the global: How communication practices compromised public participation in India's allain dunhangan environmental impact assessment. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 1(2), 171.
32. Miller, C. (2009). Soapbox -What kinds of people are we imagining? CSPO Soapbox, Retrieved from http://www.cspo.org/soapbox/view/091120P6LW/what-kinds- of-people-arewe- imagining/
33. National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2009). National nanotechnology initiative. Retrieved from http://www.nano.gov/.
34. Niemeyer, S., & Spash, C.L. (2001). Environmental valuation analysis, public deliberation, and their pragmatic syntheses: A critical appraisal. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19(4), 567-585. (Pubitemid 32832464)
35. Nordmann, A. (2005). Noumenal technology: Reflections on the incredible tininess of nano. Techne, 8(3), 3-23.
36. Peter D. Hart Research Associates. 2009. Nanotechnology, synthetic biology, & public opinion: A report of findings based on a national survey among adults. Washington DC: Hart Research Associates.
37. Rip, A. (1986). Controversies as informal technology assessment. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8(2), 349-371.
38. Royal Society. (2009). Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty. London: Royal Society.
39. Schuurbiers, D., & Fisher, E. (2009). Lab-scale intervention. Science & Society Series on Convergence Research. EMBO Reports, 10(5), 424-427.
40. Selin, C. (2007). Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 32(2), 196-220.
41. Selin, C. (2008). The sociology of the future: Tracing stories of technology and time. Sociology Compass, 2(6), 1878-1895.
42. Selin, C., & Boradkar, P. (2010). Prototyping nanotechnology: A transdisciplinary approach to responsible innovation. Journal of Nano Education, 2(1-2), 1-12.
43. Selin, C., & Hudson, R. (2010). Envisioning nanotechnology: New media and future-oriented stakeholder dialogue. Technology in Society, 32(3), 173-182.
44. Webler, T., & Tuler, S. (2002). Unlocking the puzzle of public participation. Bulletin of Science. Technology & Society, 22(3), 179-189. (Pubitemid 34690566)
45. Webler, T., & Tuler, S. (2006). Four perspectives on public participation process in environmental assessment and decision making: Combined results from 10 case studies. Policy Studies Journal, 34(4), 699-722. (Pubitemid 44921001)
46. Wynne, B. (1993). Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science, 2(4), 321-337.
47. Wynne, B. (2005). Risk as globalizing "democratic discourse?" Framing subjects and citizens. In M. Leach, I. Scoones, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Science and citizens: Globalisation and the challenge of engagement (pp. 66-82). London: Zed Books.