Learning in, through, and about participatory technology assessment: the case of Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow's Society (NanoSoc)

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

Volumn 26, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 825-836

  van Oudheusden, Michiel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIÈGE   (Belgium)

Author keywords

learning; nanotechnologies; participation; participatory technology assessment; reflexivity

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; LEARNING; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; POLICY MAKING; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 84904054326     PISSN: 09537325     EISSN: 14653990     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2014.902436     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Abels, G. 2009. Organizer, observant and participant. What role for social scientists in different pTA models? Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 5: 19-35.
2. Argyris, C., and D. Schön. 1996. Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3. Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C., and Guston, D. 2008. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In The handbook of science and technology studies, ed. E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 979-1000. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Beck, U., W. Bonss, and C. Lau. 2003. The theory of reflexive modernization: Problematic, hypotheses and research programme. Theory, Culture & Society 20: 1-33. doi: 10.1177/0263276403020002001
5. Chilvers, J. 2012. Reflexive engagement? Actors, learning, and reflexivity in public dialogue on science and technology. Science Communication 35: 283-310. doi: 10.1177/1075547012454598
6. Davies, S., E. McCallie, E. Simonsson, J.L. Lehr, and S. Duensing. 2009. Discussing dialogue: Perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public Understanding of Science 18: 338-53. doi: 10.1177/0963662507079760
7. Delgado, A., K.L. Kjølberg, and F. Wickson. 2011. Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 20: 826-45. doi: 10.1177/0963662510363054
8. Delvenne, P., C. Fallon, and S. Brunet. 2011. Parliamentary technology assessment as indications of reflexive modernization. Technology in Society 33: 36-43. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.03.004
9. Döbert, R. 1997. Rationalitätsdimensionen von partizipativer Technikfolgenabschätzung. In Diskursive Technikfolgenabschätzung, ed. S. Köberle, F. Gloedeand L. Hennen, 200-213. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.
10. Doubleday, R. 2007. Risk, public engagement and reflexivity: Alternative framings of the public dimensions of nanotechnology. Health, Risk & Society 9: 211-27. doi: 10.1080/13698570701306930
11. 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: 408-37. doi: 10.1177/016224399502000402
12. EWI. 2012. Beleidsplan wetenschapscommunicatie 2012-2014 (VR 2012 2001 MED.0026), Departement Economie, Wetenschap en Innovatie (EWI), Brussels, Belgium.
13. Felt, U., and M. Fochler. 2010. Machineries for making publics: Inscribing and describing publics in public engagement. Minerva 48: 219-38. doi: 10.1007/s11024-010-9155-x
14. Fisher, E. 2007. Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics 1: 155-65. doi: 10.1007/s11569-007-0016-5
15. Genus, A. 2006. Rethinking constructive technology assessment as democratic, reflective, discourse. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73: 13-26. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2005.06.009
16. Goorden, L., M. Van Oudheusden, J. Evers, and M. Deblonde. 2008a. Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow's Society: A case for reflective action research in Flanders, Belgium. In Presenting futures. Yearbook of nanotechnology in society, Vol. 1, ed. E. Fisher, C. Selin, and J. Wetmore, 163-82. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.
17. Goorden, L., M. Van Oudheusden, J. Evers, and M. Deblonde. 2008b. Lose one another... and find one another in nanospace. 'Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow's Society: A case for reflective action research in Flanders. NanoEthics 2, no. 3: 213-30. doi: 10.1007/s11569-008-0043-x
18. Grin, J., H. van de Graaf, and R. Hoppe. 1997. Interactieve technology assessment. Een eerste gids voor wie het wagen wil [Interactive Technology Assessment: A Guide]. The Hague: Rathenau Instituut.
19. Grünwald, A. 2004. Vision assessment as a new element of the FTA toolbox. Paper presented at the EU-US Seminar: 'New technology foresight, forecasting and assessment methods', 13-14 May, Seville, Spain.
20. Guston, D.H. 2011. Participating despite questions: toward a more confident participatory technology assessment: commentary on: 'Questioning "participation": a critical appraisal of its conceptualization in a Flemish participatory technology assessment'. Science and Engineering Ethics 17: 691-7. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9314-y
21. Guston, D.H., and D. Sarewitz. 2002. Real time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24: 93-109. doi: 10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1
22. Hrzonsky, I. 2001. Toward 'lay' participation and co-operative learning in TA, technology policy and construction of technologies. In Interdisciplinarity in technology assessment. Implementation and its chances and limits (Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung; Bd. 11), ed. M. Decker, 95-122. Berlin: Springer.
23. Joy, B. 2000. Why the future doesn't need us. Wired 8: 238-62.
24. Laurent, B. 2010. Les poitiques des nanotechnologies. Pour un traitement démocratique d'une science émergente. Paris: Charles Leopold Mayer.
25. Limoges, C. 1993. Expert knowledge and decision-making in controversy contexts. Public Understanding of Science 2: 417-26. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/2/4/009
26. Lövbrand, E., R. PielkeJr and B. Silke. 2011. A democracy paradox in studies of science and technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values 36: 474-96. doi: 10.1177/0162243910366154
27. MacNaghten, P., M. Kearnes, and B. Wynne. 2005. Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication 27: 1-24. doi: 10.1177/1075547005281531
28. Martin, B., and E. Richards. 1995. Scientific knowledge, controversy, and public decision making. In The handbook of science and technology studies, ed. S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen and T. Pinch, 506-26. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Mutz, D. 2006. Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
30. Rip, A. 1986. Controversies as informal technology assessment. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 8: 349-71.
31. Rip, A., and D. Robinson. 2013. Constructive technology assessment and the methodology of insertion. In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening Up the Laboratory, ed. N. Doorn, D. Schuurbiers, I. van de Poel and M.E. Gorman, 37-53. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology 16. Dordrecht: Springer.
32. Schoenmakers, W., and G. Duysters. 2006. Learning in strategic technology alliances. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18: 245-64. doi: 10.1080/09537320600624162
33. Schön, D. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
34. Schot, J. 2001. Towards new forms of participatory technology development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 13: 39-52. doi: 10.1080/09537320120040437
35. Schot, J., and A. Rip. 1997. The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technology Forecasting and Social Change 54: 251-68. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1
36. Stirling, A. 2006. Precaution, foresight and sustainability: Reflection and reflexivity in the governance of science and technology. In Reflexive governance for sustainable development, ed. J.-P. Vorβ, D. Bauknecht and R. Kemp, 225-72. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
37. Stirling, A. 2008. 'Opening up' and 'closing down'. Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values 33: 262-94. doi: 10.1177/0162243907311265
38. Van Eijndhoven, J., and R. van Est. 2000. The choice of participatory TA methods. In Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe, ed. S. Joss and J. Durant, 209-34. London: Science Museum with the Support of the European Commission Directorate General XII.
39. Van Oudheusden, M. 2011a. Questioning 'participation': A critical appraisal of its conceptualization in a flemish participatory technology assessment. Science and Engineering Ethics 17, no. 4: 673-90. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9313-z
40. Van Oudheusden, M. 2011b. Opening 'participation' through participatory technology assessment: The case of nanotechnologies for tomorrow's society. PhD diss., University of Antwerp.
41. Van Oudheusden, M., and H. De Zutter. 2012. Contesting co-inquiry: 'Noncommunicative' discourse in a flemish participatory technology assessment. Science Communication 34, no. 1: 83-113. doi: 10.1177/1075547011408926
42. Van Oudheusden, M., and B. Laurent. 2013. Shifting and deepening engagements: Experimental normativity in public participation in science and technology. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 9, no. 1: 3-22.
43. Van Oudheusden, M. 2014. Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1, no. 1: 67-86. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.882097
44. Wynne, B. 1993. Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science 2: 321-37. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/2/4/003
45. Wynne, B. 2007a. Dazzled by the mirage of influence? STS-SSK in multivalent registers of relevance. Science, Technology, & Human Values 32: 491-503. doi: 10.1177/0162243907301086
46. Wynne, B. 2007b. Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 1: 99-110.
47. Zuiderent-Jerak, T., and C.B. Jensen. 2007. Editorial introduction: Unpacking 'intervention' in science and technology studies. Science as Culture 16: 227-35. doi: 10.1080/09505430701568552