Technology of imagination: A card-based public engagement method for debating emerging technologies

Qualitative Research

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 233-251

  Felt, Ulrike ^a   Schumann, Simone ^a   Schwarz, Claudia G ^a   Strassnig, Michael ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^b Vienna Science and Technology Fund   (Austria)

Author keywords

Austria; card based discussion method; deliberative democracy; emerging technologies; future; governance; group discussions; lay citizens; nanotechnology; public engagement

Indexed keywords

EID: 84898917010     PISSN: 14687941     EISSN: 17413109     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1468794112468468     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Adams B,Grove CFuture Matters: Action, Knowledge, Ethics. Leiden: Brill; 2007:.
2. Akrich MShaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Law J, ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1992:205-224.
3. Barben D,Fisher E,Selin C, et alThe Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Hackett EJAmsterdamska OLynch M, ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2007:979-1000.
4. Bennett IThe Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society. Fisher ESelin CWetmore JM, ed. New York: Springer; 2008:149-155.
5. Billig MArguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996:.
6. Bloor M,Frankland J,Thomas M, et alFocus Groups in Social Research. London: Sage; 2001:.
7. Bowman DM,Hodge GA.Nanotechnology and public interest dialogue: some international observations.Bulletin of Science Technology & Society. 2007;27 (2): 118-132.
8. Brown N,Michael M.A sociology of expectations: retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects.Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 2003;15 (1): 3-18.
9. Chang JC,Cluss PA,Ranieri L, et al.Health care interventions for intimate partner violence: what women want.Women's Health Issues. 2005;15 (1): 21-30.
10. Collingridge DThe Social Control of Technology. New York: St Martin's Press; 1980:.
11. Davies SR.How we talk when we talk about nano: the future in laypeople's talk.Futures. 2011;43 (3): 317-326.
12. Delgado A,Kjølberg KL,Wickson F.Public engagement coming of age: from theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20 (6): 826-845.
13. Farnsworth J,Boon B.Analysing group dynamics within the focus group.Qualitative Research. 2010;10 (5): 605-624.
14. Felt UTechnologisierung gesellschaftlicher Zukünfte. Nanotechnologien in wissenschaftlicher, politischer und öffentlicher Praxis. Lucht PErlemann MRuiz Ben E, ed. Freiburg: Centaurus; 2010:19-37.
15. Felt U,Fochler M.Machineries for making publics: inscribing and describing publics in public engagement.Minerva. 2010;48 (3): 219-238.
16. Felt U,Wynne BTaking European Knowledge Society Seriously. Luxembourg: European Commission; 2007:.
17. Felt U,Fochler M,Mager A, et al.Visions and versions of governing biomedicine: narratives on power structures, decision-making and public participation in the field of biomedical technology in the Austrian context.Social Studies of Science. 2008;38 (2): 233-255.
18. Felt U,Fochler M,Müller A, et al.Unruly ethics: on the difficulties of a bottom-up approach to ethics in the field of genomics.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18 (3): 354-371.
19. Garfinkel HStudies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc; 1967:.
20. Goodin R,Dryzek J.Deliberative impact: the macro-political uptake of mini-publics.Politics & Society. 2006;34 (2): 219-244.
21. Hackett EJ,Rhoten DR.The snowbird charrette: integrative interdisciplinary -collaboration in environmental research design.Minerva. 2009;47 (4): 407-440.
22. Hagendijk R,Irwin A.Public deliberation and governance: engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe.Minerva. 2006;44 (2): 167-184.
23. Horst M,Irwin A.Nations at ease with radical knowledge: on consensus, consensusing and false consensusness.Social Studies of Science. 2010;40 (1): 106-126.
24. Irwin A.The politics of talk: coming to terms with the 'New Scientific Governance'.Social Studies of Science. 2006;36 (2): 299-320.
25. Kitzinger J.The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants.Sociology of Health & Illness. 1994;16 (19): 103-121.
26. Law JAfter Method: Mess in Social Science Research. New York and London: Routledge; 2004:.
27. Law J,Hassard JActor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 1999:.
28. Macnaghten P,Davies SR.Narratives of mastery and resistance: lay ethics of nanotechnology.NanoEthics. 2010;4 (2): 141-151.
29. Macnaghten P,Kearnes MB,Wynne B.Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences?.Science Communication. 2005;27 (2): 268-291.
30. Marres NNo issue, no public: democratic deficits after the displacement of politics. Netherlands: Universiteit van Amsterdam; 2005:.
31. Michael M.On making data social: heterogeneity in sociological practice.Qualitative Research. 2004;4 (1): 5-23.
32. Myers G.Displaying opinions: topics and disagreement in focus groups.Language in Society. 1998;27 (1): 85-111.
33. Reckwitz A.Toward a theory of social practices: a development in culturalist theorizing.European Journal of Social Theory. 2002;5 (2): 243-263.
34. Rip A,te Kulve HThe Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume 1: Presenting Futures. Fisher ESelin CWetmore JM, ed. New York: Springer; 2008:49-70.
35. Schatzki TSocial Practices: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996:.
36. Star SL,Griesemer JR.Institutional ecology, 'Translations' and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39.Social Studies of Science. 1989;19 (3): 387-420.
37. Sutton B.Playful cards, serious talk: a qualitative research technique to elicit women's embodied experiences.Qualitative Research. 2011;11 (2): 177-196.
38. TürkVKnowlesHWalbaumH. (2005) Nanologue scenarios: the future of nanotechnology: we need to talk. Available at: http://www.nanologue.net/.
39. Warr DJ.'It was fun... but we don't usually talk about these things': analyzing sociable interaction in focus groups.Qualitative Inquiry. 2005;11 (29): 200-225.
40. Wilsdon J,Willis RSee-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos; 2004:.
41. Wynne B.Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and public uptake of science.Public Understanding of Science. 1992;1 (1): 281-304.
42. Wynne BHandbook of Science and Technology Studies. Jasanoff SMarkle GPetersen JC, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995:361-388.