Against blank slate futuring: Noticing obduracy in the city through experiential methods of public engagement

Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 218-237

  Selin, Cynthia ^a   Sadowski, Jathan ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84923054230     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (78)

1. Arthur, W. B. 1990. Positive feedback loops in the economy, Scientific American 262: 92-99.
2. Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C. and Guston, D. 2008. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement and integration. In: E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch and J. Wajcman (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp979-1000.
3. Bijker, W. E. 1995. Of Bicycles, Bakelites and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Brown, W. 2005. Edgework: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5. Callon, M. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (ed.) Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London: Routledge, pp196-233.
6. Campbell, K. B. 2005. Theorizing the authentic: Identity, engagement and public space, Administration & Society 36(6): 688-705.
7. Casey, E. 1996. How to get from space to place in a fairly short space of time. In: S. Feld and K. Basso (eds) Senses of Place. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, pp13-52.
8. Cobb, M. D. 2011. Creating informed public opinion: Citizen deliberation about nanotechnologies for human enhancements, Journal of Nanoparticle Research 13: 1533-1548.
9. Cohen, J. 2009. Reflections on deliberative democracy. In: T. Christiano and J. Christman (eds) Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp247-263.
10. Collingridge, D. 1980. The Social Control of Technology. New York: St. Martin's Press.
11. Coutard, O. and Guy, S. 2007. STS and the city: Politics and practices of hope, Science, Technology & Human Values 32(6): 713-734.
12. Cowan, R. S. 1985. How the refrigerator got its hum. In: D. MacKenzie and J. Wajcman (eds) The Social Shaping of Technology. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press, pp202-218.
13. David, P. A. 1985. Clio and the economics of QWERTY, The American Economic Review 75(2): 332-337.
14. Davies, S. R. 2011. How we talk when we talk about nano: The future in laypeople's talk, Futures 43(3): 317-326.
15. Davies, S. R., Selin, C., Gano, G. and Pereira, A. G. 2012. Citizen engagement and urban change: Three case studies of material deliberation, Cities 29(6): 351-357.
16. Delgado, A., Kjølberg, K. L. and Wickson, F. 2011. Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology, Public Understanding of Science 20(6): 826-845.
17. Durant, D. 2011. Models of democracy in social studies of science. Social Studies of Science 41: 691-714.
18. Evans, R. and Plows, A. 2007. Listening without prejudice? Re-discovering the value of the disinterested citizen, Social Studies of Science 37(6): 827-853.
19. Feenberg, A. 1994. The technocracy thesis revisited: On the critique of power, Inquiry 37: 85-102.
20. Feenberg, A. 2011. Agency and citizenship in a technological society. Lecture presented to the Course on Digital Citizenship, IT University of Copenhagen, pp1-13.
21. Felt, U. and Fochler, M. 2009. Between the fat-pill and the atomic bomb: Civic imaginations of regimes of innovation governance, Science as Culture 20(3): 307-328.
22. Foucault, M. 1995. Discipline & Punish: Birth of the Prison, 2nd edition. New York: Vintage Books.
23. Fung, A. 2006. Varieties of participation in complex governance, Public Administration Review 66: 66-75.
24. Gieryn, T. 2002. What buildings do, Theory and Society 31: 35-74.
25. Gorman, M. E. and Carlson, W. B. 1990. Interpreting invention as a cognitive process: The case of Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison and the telephone, Science, Technology & Human Values 15(2): 131-164.
26. Graham, S. 2002. On technology, infrastructure and the contemporary urban condition: A response to Coutard, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26(1): 175-182.
27. Graham, S. and Marvin, S. 2001. Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. London: Routledge.
28. Gullberg, A. and Kaijser, A. 1998. City building regimes in post-war Stockholm, TRITAHST Working Paper 98/3. Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology, Department of History of Science and Technology.
29. Guston, D. H. 2008. Innovation policy: Not just a jumbo shrimp, Nature 454: 940-941.
30. Guston, D. H. 2014a. Building the capacity for public engagement with science in the United States, Public Understanding of Science 23(1): 53-59.
31. Guston, D. H. 2014b. Understanding 'anticipatory governance', Social Studies of Science 44(2): 218-242.
32. Guston, D. H. and Sarewitz, D. 2002. Real-time technology assessment, Technology in Society 24: 93-109.
33. Guy, S., Graham, S. and Marvin, S. 1997. Splintering networks: Cities and technical networks in 1990s Britain, Urban Studies 34(2): 191-216.
34. Hamlett, P. W. 2003. Technology theory and deliberative democracy, Science, Technology & Human Values 28(1): 112-140.
35. Hommels, A. 2005. Studying obduracy in the city: Toward a productive fusion between technology studies and urban studies, Science, Technology & Human Values 30(3): 323-351.
36. Hommels, A. 2008. Unbuilding Cities: Obduracy in Urban Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. Hughes, T. P. 1987. The evolution of large technological systems. In: W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes and T. J. Pinch (eds) The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp51-82.
38. Hughes, T. P. 1994. Technological momentum. In: M. R. Smith and L. Marx (eds) Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp101-113.
39. Joerges, B. 1999. Do politics have artefacts?, Social Studies of Science 29(3): 411-431.
40. Kirkman, R. 2004. The ethics of metropolitan growth: A framework, Philosophy & Geography 7(2): 201-218.
41. Kirkman, R. 2009. At home in the seamless web: Agency, obduracy and the ethics of metropolitan growth, Science, Technology & Human Values 34(2): 234-258.
42. Kitt Chappell, S. A. 1989. Urban ideals and the design of railroad stations, Technology and Culture 30(2): 354-375.
43. Larkin, B. 2013. The politics and poetics of infrastructure, Annual Review of Anthropology 42: 327-343.
44. Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45. Latour, B. 1988. The prince for machines as well as for machinations. In: B. Elliott (ed.) Technology and Social Process. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp20-43.
46. Latour, B. 1992. Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In: W. E. Bijker and J. Law (eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp225-258.
47. Latour, B. 1994. On technical mediation-Philosophy, sociology, genealogy, Common Knowledge 3(2): 29-64.
48. Latour, B. 2002. Morality and technology: The end of the means, Theory, Culture & Society 19(5/6): 247-260.
49. Latour, B. 2004. Nonhumans. In: S. Harrison, S. Pile and N. Thrift (eds) Patterned Ground: Entanglements of Nature and Culture. London: Reaktion Books, pp224-227.
50. Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51. Liebowitz, S. J. and Margolis, S. E. 1995. Path dependence, lock-in and history, Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 11(1): 205-226.
52. Lockton, D. 2005. Architectures of Control in Consumer Product Design. Unpublished paper, http://ssrn.com/abstract=908493 (accessed 11 December 2012).
53. Marres, N. 2012. Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
54. Marx, L. 1987. Does improved technology mean progress?, Technology Review 90(1): 33-41.
55. Nusca, A. 2011. In downtown Phoenix, cooler pavement for parking lots, Smartplanet, 31 May, www.zdnet.com/article/in-downtown-phoenix-cooler-pavement-for-parking-lots (accessed 19 February 2013).
56. Park, H., Chang, S., Jean, J., Cheng, J. J., Araujo, P. T., Wang, M., Bawendi, M. G., Dresselhaus, M. S., Bulović, V., Kong, J. and Gradeča, S. 2013. Graphene cathode-based ZnO nanowire hybrid solar cells, Nano Letters 13(1): 233-239.
57. Pinch, T. J. and Bijker, W. E. 1987. The social construction of facts and artifacts. In: W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes and T. J. Pinch (eds) New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp11-44.
58. Regan, W., Byrnes, S., Gannett, W., Ergen, O., Vazquez-Mena, O., Wang, F. and Zettl, A. 2012. Screening-engineered field-effect solar cells, Nano Letters 12(8): 4300-4304.
59. Ryfe, D. M. 2005. Does deliberative democracy work? Annual Review of Political Science 8: 49-71.
60. Sadowski, J. and Selinger, E. 2014. Creating a taxonomic tool for technocracy and applying it to Silicon Valley, Technology in Society 38: 161-168.
61. Sass, J. and Dryzek, J. S. 2014. Deliberative cultures, Political Theory 42(1): 3-25.
62. Seager, T. P., Selinger, E. and Wiek, A. 2012. Sustainable engineering science for resolving wicked problems, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25(4): 467-484.
63. Selin, C. 2007. Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology, Science, Technology & Human Values 32(2): 196-220.
64. Selin, C., Rawlings, K., de-Ridder Vignone, Sadowski, J., Altamirano, C., Gano, G., Davies, S. and Guston, D. forthcoming. Experiments in engagement: Designing PEST for capacity building, Public Understanding of Science.
65. Shapira, P. and Youtie, J. 2012. The economic contributions of nanotechnology to green and sustainable growth. Paper presented at International Symposium on Assessing the Economic Impact of Nanotechnology, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the US National Nanotechnology Initiative, Washington DC, 27-28 March.
66. Sontag, S. 2001. On Photography, 1st edition. New York: Picador.
67. Star, S. L. 1999. The ethnography of infrastructure, American Behavioral Scientist 43(3): 377-391.
68. 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.
69. Tiberius, V. 2011. Path dependence, path breaking, and path creation: A theoretical scaffolding for futures studies?, Journal of Futures Studies 15(4): 1-8.
70. Verbeek, P.-P. 2006. Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation, Science, Technology & Human Values 31(3): 361-380.
71. Verbeek, P.-P. 2011. Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
72. von Schomberg, R. and Davies, S. 2010. Understanding Public Debate on Nanotechnologies: Options for Framing Public Policy. Report from the European Commission Services. Brussels: European Commission.
73. Weber, R. 2002. Extracting value from the city: Neoliberalism and urban redevelopment, Antipode 34(3): 519-540.
74. Wiek, A., Foley, R. W. and Guston, D. H. 2012. Nanotechnology for sustainability: What does nanotechnology offer to address complex sustainability problems?, Journal of Nanoparticle Research 14(9): 1093-2013.
75. Wiek, A., Guston, D., van der Leeuw, S., Selin, C. and Shapira, P. 2013. Nanotechnology in the city, sustainability challenges and anticipatory governance, Journal of Urban Technology 20(2): 45-62.
76. Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. 2004. See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.
77. Winner, L. 1980. Do artifacts have politics?, Daedalus 109(1): 121-136.
78. Winner, L. 1986. The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.