Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond

Journal of Responsible Innovation

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 67-86

  van Oudheusden, Michiel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIÈGE   (Belgium)

Author keywords

innovation; normativity; politics; power; responsibility; technology assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84978618669     PISSN: 23299460     EISSN: 23299037     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2014.882097     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Abels, G. 2007. “Citizen Involvement in Public Policy-Making: Does It Improve Democratic Legitimacy and Accountability? The Case of pTA.” Interdisciplinary Information Sciences 13 (1): 103–116. doi: 10.4036/iis.2007.103
2. Barabas, J. 2004. “How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions.” American Political Science Review 98 (4): 687–701. doi: 10.1017/S0003055404041425
3. Barben, D., E., Fisher, C., Selin, and D., Guston. 2008. “Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by E. J., Hackett, O., Amsterdamska, M., Lynch, and J., Wajcman, 979–1000. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Beck, U. 1993. Die Erfindung des Politischen. Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp Verlag.
5. Bora, A., and H., Hausendorf. 2004. Participation and the Dynamics of Social Positioning (PARADYS): Final Report to the European Commission. Contract No. HPSE-CT 2001–00050. Bielefeld.
6. Bozeman, B. 2005. “Public Value Mapping of Science Outcomes: Theory and Method. A Monograph of the Public Value Mapping Project of the Center for Science, Policy, and Outcomes”. http://archive.cspo.org/products/rocky/Rock-Vol2–1.PDF
7. Cass, N. 2006. “Participatory-Deliberative Engagement: A Literature Review,” Working Paper, Lancaster University.
8. Cook, G., E., Pieri, and P. T., Robbins. 2004. “‘The Scientists Think and the Public Feels’: Expert Perceptions of the Discourse of GM Food.” Discourse & Society 15 (4): 433–449. doi: 10.1177/0957926504043708
9. Delgado, A., K. L., Kjølberg, and F., Wickson. 2010. “Public Engagement Coming of Age: From Theory to Practice in STS Encounters With Nanotechnology.” Public Understanding of Science 20 (6): 826–845. doi: 10.1177/0963662510363054
10. Döbert, R. 1997. “Rationalitätsdimensionen von partizipativer Technikfolgenabschätzung.” In Diskursive Technikfolgenabschätzung, edited by S., Köberle, F., Gloede, and L., Hennen, 200–213. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.
11. Easton, D. 1965. A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
12. EC (European Commission). 2013. Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation. Brussels: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Science in Society, European Commission (EUR25766). http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/options-for-strengthening_en.pdf
13. Eden, S. 1996. “Public Participation in Environmental Policy: Considering Scientific, Counter-Scientific and Non-Scientific Contributions.” Public Understanding of Science 5 (3): 183–204. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/5/3/001
14. EFC (European Foundation Centre). 2012. “From Science in Society to Responsible Research and Innovation.” http://www.efc.be/news_events/Pages/From-Science-in-Society.aspx
15. Entman, R. M., 1993. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43 (3): 51–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
16. 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 (4): 408–437. doi: 10.1177/016224399502000402
17. Felt, U., B., Wynne, M., Callon, M. E., Gonçalves, S., Jasanoff, M., Jepsen, P.-B., Joly, et al. 2007. Taking European Knowledge Seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate. Brussels: Directorate-General for Research, European Commission.
18. Fisher, E. 2007. “Ethnographic Intervention: Probing the Capacity of Laboratory Decisions.” NanoEthics 1 (2): 155–165. doi: 10.1007/s11569-007-0016-5
19. Flyvbjerg, B. 1998. “Habermas and Foucault: Thinkers for Civil Society?” British Journal of Sociology 49 (2): 210–233. doi: 10.2307/591310
20. Forrester, J. 1999. The Deliberative Practitioner. Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Foucault, M., 1982. The Subject and Power. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. 2nd ed., edited by Hubert L., Dreyfus and Paul, Rabinow. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22. Foucault, M. 1988. “The Ethic of Care for the Self as a Practice of Freedom.” In The Final Foucault, edited by J., Bernauer and D., Rasmussen, 1–20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Fuller, S. 2000. “Why Science Studies Has Never Been Critical of Science. Some Recent Lessons on How to Be a Helpful Nuisance and a Harmless Radical.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 30 (1): 5–32. doi: 10.1177/004839310003000101
24. Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R., Ravetz. 1993. “Science for the Post-Normal Age.” Futures 25 (7): 735–755. doi: 10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L
25. Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R., Ravetz. 1990. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
26. Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R., Ravetz. 1994. “The Worth of a Songbird: Ecological Economics as a Post-Normal Science.” Ecological Economics 10 (3): 197–207. doi: 10.1016/0921-8009(94)90108-2
27. Genus, A. 2006. “Rethinking Constructive Technology Assessment as Democratic, Reflective, Discourse.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73 (1): 13–26. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2005.06.009
28. Gethmann, C. F., 2002. “Participatory Technology Assessment: Some Critical Questions.” Poeisis Prax 1: 151–159. doi: 10.1007/s10202-002-0015-0
29. Gibbons, M., C., Limoges, H., Nowotny, S., Schwartzman, P., Scott, and M., Trow. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
30. Goorden, L., and M., Deblonde. 2011. Navigating in Nanospace. Presentation of an Integrated Roadmap. Final Report NanoSoc. Antwerpen, Belgium: Universiteit Antwerpen, 70 pp.
31. 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, edited by E., Fisher, C., Selin, and J., Wetmore, Vol. 1, 163–182. New York: Springer.
32. 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 (NanoSoc).” NanoEthics 2 (3): 213–230. doi: 10.1007/s11569-008-0043-x
33. Grin, J., and A., Grünwald (Eds.). 2002. “Vision Assessment: Shaping Technology in 21st Century Society.” Poeisis & Praxis 1 (2): 165–166.
34. 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]. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Rathenau Instituut.
35. Gross, M. 2006. “Beyond Expertise: Ecological Science and the Making of Socially Robust Restoration Strategies.” Journal for Nature Conservation 14 (3–4): 172–179. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2006.05.004
36. Grünwald, A. 2004. “Vision Assessment as a New Element of the FTA Toolbox,” EU-US Seminar: New Technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, May 13–14.
37. Guston, D. H., 1999. “Evaluating the First U.S. Consensus Conference: The Impact of the Citizens’ Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 24 (4): 451–482. doi: 10.1177/016224399902400402
38. Guston, D. H., and D., Sarewitz. 2002. “Real Time Technology Assessment.” Technology in Society 24 (1–2): 93–109. doi: 10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1
39. Hessels, L. K., and H., Van Lente. 2008. “Re-Thinking New Knowledge Production: A Literature Review and a Research Agenda.” Research Policy 37: 740–760. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.008
40. Jasanoff, S. 2003. “Technologies of Humility: Citizens Participation in Governing Science.” Minerva 41 (3): 223–244. doi: 10.1023/A:1025557512320
41. Kerr, A., S., Cunningham-Burley, and R., Tutton. 2007. “Shifting Subject Positions: Experts and Lay People in Public Dialogue.” Social Studies of Science 37 (3): 385–411. doi: 10.1177/0306312706068492
42. Klein, H. K., and D. L., Kleinman. 2002. “The Social Construction of Technology: Structural Considerations.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 27 (1): 28–52. doi: 10.1177/016224390202700102
43. Kondratiev, N. 1978. “The Long Wave in Economic Life.” Translated by W. Stolper. Lloyds Bank Review 129, 41–60.
44. Laporte, T. 2013. “Managing Increasing Relative Ignorance: Potential for and Pitfalls of Participatory Practices and the Role of Institutions in a New Technology Assessment.” Paper presented at the workshop on technology assessment, its potential and limitations, University of Liège, Liège, March 7.
45. Lezaun, J., and L., Soneryd. 2007. “Consulting Citizens: Technologies of Elicitation and the Mobility of Publics.” Public Understanding of Science 16 (3): 279–297. doi: 10.1177/0963662507079371
46. Loeber, A. 2004a. “Method and Practice of Interactive Technology Assessment. Learning from a Dutch Analytic Experiment on Sustainable Crop Protection.” Paper presented at the Joint 4S/EASST conference, Paris, August 25–28.
47. Loeber, A. 2004b. “Practical Wisdom in the Risk Society. Methods and Practice of Interpretive Analysis on Questions of Sustainable Development.” PhD diss., University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
48. Lövbrand, R. Pielke, Jr, and S., Beck. 2011. “A Democracy Paradox in Studies of Science and Technology.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 36 (4): 474–496. doi: 10.1177/0162243910366154
49. Macnaghten, P., M., Kearnes, and B., Wynne. 2005. “Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?” Science Communication 27 (2): 1–24. doi: 10.1177/1075547005281531
50. Martin, B., and E., Richards. 1995. “Scientific Knowledge, Controversy, and Public Decision Making.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by S., Jasanoff, G. E., Markle, J. C., Petersen, and T., Pinch, 506–526. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51. Mayer, I. 1997. “Debating Technologies. A Methodological Contribution to the Design and Evaluation of Participatory Policy Analysis.” PhD diss., University of Tilburg, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
52. Michael, M., and N., Brown. 2005. “On Doing Scientific Citizenships: Reflections on Xenotransplantation's Publics.” Science as Culture 14 (1): 39–57. doi: 10.1080/09505430500041769
53. Mills, P. 2013. “Why Does Responsible Innovation Need Public Ethics?” http://blog.nuffieldbioethics.org/?p=606
54. Mouffe, C. 1999. “Deliberative Democacy or Agonistic Pluralism?” Social Research 66 (3): 745–758.
55. Mutz, D. 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
56. Nahuis, R., and H., Van Lente. 2008. “Where Are the Politics? Perspectives on Democracy and Technology.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 33 (5): 559–581. doi: 10.1177/0162243907306700
57. Nowotny, H., P., Scott, and M., Gibbons. 2001. Re-Thinking Science, Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.
58. NPD. 2005. Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow's Society Project Description, 50 pp. www.nanosoc.be
59. Owen, R., P., Macnaghten, and J., Stilgoe. 2012. “Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society.” Science and Public Policy 39: 751–760. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs093
60. Pellizzoni, L. 2012. “Strong Will in a Messy World. Ethics and the Government of Technoscience.” NanoEthics 6 (3): 257–272. doi: 10.1007/s11569-012-0159-x
61. Pestre, D. 2008. “Challenges for the Democratic Management of Technoscience: Governance, Participation and the Political Today.” Science as Culture 17 (2): 101–119. doi: 10.1080/09505430802062869
62. Pinch, T., and W., Bijker. 1984. “The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other.” Social Studies of Science 14 (August): 391–441.
63. Radder, H. 1992. “Normative Reflexions on Constructivist Approaches to Science and Technology.” Social Studies of Science 22 (1): 141–173. doi: 10.1177/0306312792022001009
64. Rip, A., and H., Te Kulve. 2008. “Constructive Technology Assessment and Socio-Technical Scenarios.” In The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume 1: Presenting Futures, edited by E., Fisher, C., Selin, and J., Wetmore, 49–70. New York: Springer.
65. Rose, N. 1999. Powers of Freedom. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
66. Rowe, G., and L., Frewer. 2000. “Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation.” Science, Technology & Human Values 25 (1): 3–29. doi: 10.1177/016224390002500101
67. Schot, J., and A., Rip. 1997. “The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment.” Technology Forecasting and Social Change 54 (2–3): 251–68. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1
68. Schumpeter, J. 1939. Business Cycles. New York: McGraw Hill.
69. Stilgoe, J., R., Owen, and P., Macnaghten. 2013. “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
70. Stirling, A. 2006. “Resolving Environmental Conflicts: Combining Participation and Multi-Criteria Analysis.” Land Use Policy 23 (1): 95–107. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.08.010
71. Stokes, S. 1998. “Pathologies of Deliberation.” In Deliberative Democracy, edited by J., Elster, 123–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
72. Sutcliffe, H. 2011. A Report on Responsible Research and Innovation for the European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/rri-report-hilary-sutcliffe_en.pdf
73. Turnhout, E., S., Van Bommel, and N., Aarts. 2010. “How Participation Creates Citizens: Participatory Governance as Performative Practice.” Ecology and Society 15 (4): 26. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art26/
74. Turnpenny, J., M., Jones, and I., Lorenzoni. 2011. “Where Now for Post-Normal Science?: A Critical Review of Its Development, Definitions, and Uses.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 36 (3): 287–306. doi: 10.1177/0162243910385789
75. 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, edited by S., Joss and J., Durant, 209–234. London: Science Museum with the Support of the European Commission Directorate General XII.
76. Van Oudheusden, M. 2011a. “Opening ‘Participation’ Through Participatory Technology Assessment: The Case of Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow's Society.” PhD diss., University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
77. Van Oudheusden, M. 2011b. “Questioning ‘Participation’: A Critical Appraisal of Its Conceptualization in a Flemish Participatory Technology Assessment.” Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4), 673–690. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9313-z
78. Van Oudheusden, M., N., Charlier, B., Rosskamp, and P., Delvenne. 2013. “Broadening the Knowledge Base of Science, Technology, and Innovation Policies Through Flemish and Walloon Technology Assessments.” Paper presented at the 2013 PACITA Conference on Technology Assessment and Policy Areas of Great Transitions, Prague, March 13–15.
79. Van Oudheusden, M., and H., De Zutter. 2012. “Contesting Co-Inquiry: ‘Noncommunicative’ Discourse in a Flemish Participatory Technology Assessment.” Science Communication 34 (1): 83–113. doi: 10.1177/1075547011408926
80. Von Schomberg, R. 2009. “Organising Collective Responsibility: On Precaution, Code of Conduct and Understanding Public Debate.” Keynote lecture at the first annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies, Seattle, WA, September 11.
81. Von Schomberg, R. 2011a. “Prospects for Technology Assessment in a Framework of Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden, edited by M., Dusseldorp and R., Beecroft, 1–19. Wiesbaden: Vs Verlag, in print.
82. Von Schomberg, R., 2011b. Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/mep-rapport-2011_en.pdf
83. Wesselink, A., and R., Hoppe. 2011. “If Post-Normal Science Is the Solution, What Is the Problem?” Science, Technoogy, & Human Values 36 (3): 389–412. doi: 10.1177/0162243910385786
84. Wynne, B. 2001. “Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics on GMOs.” Science as Culture 10 (4): 445–481. doi: 10.1080/09505430120093586
85. Wynne, B. 2006. “Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science? Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music.” Community Genetics 9 (3): 211–220. doi: 10.1159/000092659