Why do we still need participatory technology assessment?

Poiesis und Praxis

Volumn 9, Issue 1-2, 2012, Pages 27-41

  Hennen, Leonhard ^a  

^a KARLSRUHE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84870704543     PISSN: 16156609     EISSN: 16156617     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10202-012-0122-5     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Abels G (2002) Experts, citizens and eurocrats-Towards a policy shift in the governance of biopolitics in the EU. Eur Integr Online Papers (EIOP). 6(19) (http://eiop. or. at/eiop/texte/2002-019a. htm).
2. Abels G (2007) Citizen involvement in policy making: does it improve democratic legitimacy and accountability? The case of pTA. Interdiscip Inf Sci 13(1): 103-107.
3. Albaek E (1995) Between knowledge and power. Utilisation of science in public policy making. Policy Sci 28: 79-100.
4. Bogner A (2010) Partizipation als Laborexperiment. Paradoxien der Laiendeliberation in Technikfragen. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 39: 87-105.
5. Bora A, Hausendorf H (2006) Participatory science governance revisited: normative expectations versus empirical evidence. Sci Public Policy 33(7): 478-488.
6. Degelsegger A, Torgersen H (2011) Participatory paternalism: citizens' conferences in Austrian technology governance. Sci Public Policy 35: 391-402.
7. Dryzek JS, Goodin RE, Tucker A, Reber B (2009) Promethean elites encounter precautionary publics-the case of GM-Foods. Sci Technol Hum Values 34: 263-288.
8. Enderlin-Cavigelli R, Schild P (1998) Publiforum Strom und Gesellschaft. Evaluationsbericht der Stiftung Risiko-Dialog. Schweizer Wissenschaftsrat, Document de travail TA-DT 21.
9. European Commission (2001a) European governance. A White Paper, COM (2001) 428 final, Brussels.
10. European Commission (2001b) Democratizing expertise and establishing scientific reference systems. Report of the working group on the White Paper of Governance, May 2001 Brussels.
11. European Commission (2001c) Science and society. Action plan, COM (2001) 714 final, Brussels.
12. Evans RJ, Plows A (2007) Listening without prejudice? Re-discovering the value of the disinterested citizen. Soc Stud Sci 37: 827-854.
13. Felt U, Fochler M (2008) The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation in science and technology. Sci Public Policy 35: 489-499.
14. Felt U, Fochler M (2010) Machineries for making publics. Inscribing and de-scribing public engagement. Minerva 48: 219-238.
15. Frankenfeld PhJ (1992) Technological citizenship: a normative framework for risk studies. Sci Technol Hum Values 17: 459-484.
16. Guston DH, Bimber B (2000) Technology assessment for the new century. School of planning and public policy. Rutgers University, New Brunswick.
17. Habermas J (1968) Verwissenschaftlichte Politik und öffentliche Meinung. In. Ders.: Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie. Frankfurt, 120-146.
18. Habermas J (1971) The scientization of politics and public opinion. In: Toward a rational society. Beacon Press, Boston.
19. Hennen L (1992) Technisierung des Alltags. Ein handlungstheoretischer Beitrag zur Theorie technischer Vergesellschaftung. Opladen.
20. Hennen L (1999) Participatory technology assessment: a response to technical modernity? Sci Public Policy 26: 303-312.
21. Hennen L (2002) Impacts of participatory technology assessment on its social environment. In: Joss S, Bellucci S (eds) Participatory technology assessment-European perspectives. University of Westminster Press, London, pp 257-275.
22. Hill ChT (1997) The congressional office of technology assessment. A retrospective and prospects for the post-OTA world. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 54: 191-198.
23. Hoppe R (2005) Rethinking the science-policy nexus: from knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poiesis Praxis 3: 199-215.
24. Jasanoff S (2005) Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
25. Joss S, Bellucci S (eds) (2002) Participatory technology assessment-European perspectives. University of Westminster, London.
26. Levidow L, Marris C (2001) Science and governance in Europe: lessons from the case of agricultural biotechnology. Sci Public Policy 28: 345-360.
27. Linde H (1982) Soziale Implikationen technischer Geräte, ihrer Entstehung und Verwendung. In: Jokisch R (ed) Techniksoziologie, Frankfurt a. M., pp 1-31.
28. Mayer I, de Vries J, Geurts J (1995) An evaluation of the effects of participation in a consensus conference. In: Joss S, Durant J (eds) Public participation in science: the role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum, pp 109-124.
29. Morkrid AJ (2001) Consensus conferences on genetically modified food in Norway. In: OECD (ed) Citizens as partners. Information, consultation and public participation in policy-making. Paris, pp 223-237.
30. Rayner S (2003) Democracy in the age of assessment: reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making. Sci Public Policy 30: 163-170.
31. Schicktanz S, Naumann J (Hg.) (2003) Bürgerkonferenz: Streitfall Gendiagnostik. Wiesbaden.
32. Schütz A (1946) The well informed citizen: an essay on the social distribution of knowledge. Soc Res 13: 463-478.
33. Sprondel WM (1979) Experte und Laie: Zur Entwicklung von Typenbegriffen in der Wissenssoziologie. In: Sprondel WM, Grathoff R (eds) Alfred Schütz und die Idee des Alltags in den Sozialwissenschaften. Stuttgart, pp 140-154.
34. Stirling A (2007) Opening up" and "closing down"-power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Hum Values 33(2): 262-294.
35. Wynne B (2008) Public participation in science and technology: performing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake. East Asian Sci Technol Soc Int J 1: 1-13.
36. Zimmer R (2002) Begleitende Evaluation der Bürgerkonferenz "Streitfall Gendiagnostik". Fraunhofer Institut Systemtechnik und Innovationsforschung, Karlsruhe.