Technology assessment as policy analysis: From expert advice to participatory approaches

Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods

Volumn , Issue , 2017, Pages 493-511

  Reber, Bernard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85082277202     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781315093192-48     Document Type: Chapter

References (123)

1. Albaek, E. (1995). Between Knowledge and Power. Utilisation of Social Science in Public Policy Making. Policy Sciences, 28, 79-100.
2. Andersen, I. E., and Jaeger, B. (1999). Scenario Workshops and Consensus Conferences: Towards More Democratic Decision-Making. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 331-340.
3. Banse, G., Hronszky, I., and Nelson, G. (eds.), (2005). Rationality in an Uncertain World. Berlin: Sigma.
4. Bellamy, R., and Schönlau, J. (2004). The Normality of Constitutional Politics: An Analysis of the Drafting of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Constellations, 11(3), 412-433.
5. Benjamin, M. (1990). Splitting the Difference. Compromise and Integrity in Ethics and Politics. Lawrence: Kansas University Press.
6. Bereano, P. L. (1997). Refl ections of a Participant-Observer: The Technocratic/Democratic Contradiction in the Practice of Technology Assessment. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 54(2-3), 163-176.
7. Berg, M. R., Michael, D. N., and Brudney, J. L. (1978), Factors Affecting Utilisation of Technology Assessment in Policy Making. Centre for Research on Utilisation of Scientifi c Knowledge. University of Michigan.
8. Berger, M. A. (2000). Expert Testimony: The Supreme Court’s Rules. Issues in Science and Technology, 16(4), 57-63.
9. Bimber, B., (1996). The Politics of Expertise in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Offi ce of Technology Assessment. Albany: State University of New York Press.
10. Bloch, E. (1959). Das Prinzip Hoffnung. Frankurt-a-Mainz: Suhrkamp.
11. Booth, W., Ebrahim, R., and Morin, R. (2001). Participatory Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting: An Organisational Development Perspective for South African NGOs, Braamfontein: Pact/South Africa.
12. Bradbury, J. A., (1994). Risk Communication in Environmental Restoration Programs. Risk Analysis, 14(3), 357-363.
13. Breyer, S. G. (2000). Science in the Courtroom. Issues in Science and Technology, 16(4), 52-56.
14. Brown, M. (2006). Citizen Panels and the Concept of Representation. The Journal of Political Philosophy 13(2), 203-225.
15. Burgess, A. (2004). Cellular Phones. Public Fears, and Culture of Precaution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Bütschi, D., and Nentwich M. (2002). The Role of Participatory Technology Assessment in the Policy-making Process, in S. Joss, and S. Bellucci (eds.), Participatory Technology Assessment-European Perspectives, pp. 253-256, London: Westminster University Press.
17. Callon M., Lascoumes P., and Barthe Y., (2001). Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie technique. Paris: Seuil.
18. Caplan, N. (1979). The two Communities Theory and Knowledge Utilisation. American Behavioral Sciences, 459-470.
19. Chambat, P. and Fourniau, J.-M. (2001) Débat public et participation démocratique. In Vallemont S. (ed.), Le débat public: Une réforme dans l’État. LGDJ, 9-37.
20. Chubin, D., and Hackett, E. (1990). Peerless Science: Peer Review and US Science Policy. Albany: SUNY Press.
21. Coates, V. (1999). Technology Forecasting and Assessment in the United States: Statistics and Prospects. Futures Research Quarterly, 15(3), 5-25.
22. Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy, in Hamlin A. and Pettit, P. (eds.), The Good Polity. Normative Analysis of the State, pp. 17-34. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
23. Coote, A., Kendall, E., and Stewart, J. (1994). Citizens’ Juries. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
24. Council of State Governments (CSG). (1999). A State Offi cial’s Guide to Sound Science. Lexington, KY.
25. Dahl, R. A., (1998). On Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26. Decker, M., and Ladikas, M. (eds.). 2004. Bridges between Science, Society and Policy; Technology Assessment-Methods and Impacts. Berlin: Springer.
27. Dewey, J. (1927) The Public and its Problems, Chicago: Gateway Books, Chicago.
28. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, New York: Henry Holt.
29. Dupuy, J-P. (2002). Pour un catastrophisme éclairé. Quand l’impossible est certain. Paris: Seuil.
30. Durant, J. (1999). Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science, Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 313-319.
31. Dürrenberger, G., Kastenholz, H., and Behringer, J. (1999). Integrated Assessment Focus Groups: Bridging the Gap Between Science and Policy. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 341-349.
32. Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutionnal Mechanism. Science, Technology & Human Values, 15(2), 226-243.
33. Fischer F. (2000). Citizens, Experts and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
34. Fischer F. (2003) Reframing Public Policy. Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35. Fischer F. (1999). Technological Deliberation in a Democratic Society: The Case for Participatory Inquiry. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 294-302.
36. Fischer F. and Forester J. (eds.) (1987). Confronting Values in Policy Analysis. The politics of Criteria. London: Sage.
37. Fuller, S. (1988). Social Epistemology. Bloomington, IN: University Press.
38. Funtowicz, S. O., and Ravetz, J. R. (1992), Three Types of Risk Assessment and the Emergence of Post Normal Science, in Krimsky, S. and D. Golding, Social Theories of Risk, pp. 252-274. Westport, CT: Praeger.
39. Giddens, A. (1991). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
40. Giere, R. N. (1993). Science and Technology Studies: Prospects for Enlightened Postmodern Synthesis. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 18(1), 102-112.
41. Godard, O. (1997). Le principe de précaution dans la conduite des affaires humaines. Paris, Ed. de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme and INRA-Editions.
42. Gossement A., Le principe de précaution. Essai sur l’incidence de l’incertitude scientifi que sur la décision et la responsabilité publique. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2003.
43. Grunwald, A. (2002). Technikfolgenabschätzung - Eine Einführung. Berlin: Sigma.
44. Grunwald, A. (1999). Technology Assessment or Ethics of Technology? Refl ections on Technology Development between Social Sciences and Philosophy. Ethical Perspectives. Journal of European Ethics Network, 6(2), 170-182.
45. Guston, D. H. (1999). Evaluating the First US Consensus Conference: The Impact of the Citizens’ Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 24(4), 451-482.
46. Gutmann, A., and Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and Disagreement. Boston: Harvard University Press.
47. Habermas, J. (1992). Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge sur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt-a-Mainz, 1992.
48. Habermas, J. (1968). Technik und Wissenschaft als “Ideologie.” Frankfurt-a-Mainz: Suhrkamp.
49. Hennen, L. (1999). Participatory Technology Assessment: A Response to Technical Modernity? Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 303-312.
50. Herdman, R. C., and Jensen, J. E. (1997). The OTA Story: The Agency Perspective. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 54 (2&3), 131-144.
51. Hill, C. (1997). The Congressional Offi ce of Technology Assessment: A Retrospective and Prospects for the Post-OTA World. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 54(2&3), 191-198.
52. Hill S. (1992). Democratic Values and Technological Choices. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
53. Hörning, G. (1999). Citizens’ Panels as a Form of Deliberative Technology Assessment. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 351-359.
54. INES Project. (2004-2006), The Institutionalisation of Ethics in Science Policy. Practices and Impacts.
55. INRA. (2003). Co-construction d’un programme de recherche: Une expérience pilote sur les vignes transgéniques. Paris, INRA.
56. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
57. Joly P-B., and Marris C. (2002). “Que voulons-nous manger?,” Les Etats généraux de l’alimentation: Enseignement d’une expérience de mise en débat public des politiques alimentaires, Rapport Direction Générale de l’Alimentation, Paris. Available online at http://www.agriculture.gouv.fr/ega/presentation.
58. Jonas, H. (1979). Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Frankfurt-a-Mainz, Insel Verlag.
59. Joss, S. (1999a). Special Issue on Public Participation in Science and Technology. Science and Public Policy, 26(5): 290-373.
60. Joss S., and Belluci, S. (eds.). (2003). Participatory Technological Assessment. European Perspectives. London: Westminster University Press.
61. Joss, S., and Browlea, A. (1999b). Considering the concept of procedural justice for public policy and decision-making in science and technology Science and Public Policy, 2(5), 321-330.
62. Joss, S., and Durant, John. (1995). Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.
63. Kagan, S. (1998). Normative Ethics. Oxford: Westview Press.
64. Kahane, D. (2002). Délibération démocratique et ontologie sociale. Philosophiques, 29, 251-286.
65. Kaiser, M., and Forsberg, E. M. (2000) Assessing Fisheries—Using an Ethical Matrix in a Participatory Process. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14, 91-200.
66. Klauenber, B. J., and Vermulen E. K. (1994). Role for Risk Communication in Closing Military Waste Sites. Risk Analysis, 14(3), 351-356.
67. Kleinman, K. L. (ed.). (2000). Science, Technology & Democracy. Albany: State University Press of New York.
68. Klüver, L. (2003). Project Management. A Matter of Ethics and robust Decision, in Joss S. and Bellucci S. (eds.), Participatory Technology Assessment. European Perspectives. London, Westminster University Press. From the Report: See http://www.tekno.dk/subpage.php3?article=345&language=uk&category=11&toppic=kategori11
69. Kourilsky, P., and Viney, G. (1999). Le principe de précaution. Rapport au Premier ministre, Paris: Odile Jacob and La Documentation française.
70. Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The Essential Tension. Selected Studies in Scientifi c Tradition and Change. Chicago:, University of Chicago Press.
71. Kunkle, Gregory C. (1995). New Challenge or the Past Revisited? The Offi ce of Technology Assessment in Historical Context. Technology in Society, 17(2), 175-196.
72. Latour B., (1999). Politiques de la Nature. Paris: La Découverte.
73. Lee, K. (1985). A New Basis for Moral Philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan.
74. Leydet, D. (2002). La démocratie délibérative. Philosophiques, 29(2): 175-370.
75. Luhmann, N. (1992). Beobachtungen der Moderne. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
76. Mepham, T. B. (2000) A framework for the ethical analysis of novel foods: The ethical matrix. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12, 165-176. (French)
77. National Commission on Public Debate. (2004). Le catalogue des instruments, Paris.
78. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., and Gibbons, M. (2001), Rethinking Science - Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
79. OECD, (1983). Assessing the Impacts of Technology on Society. Paris: OECD.
80. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1995). OTA Legacy. http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ota/
81. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1993). Policy Analysis at OTA: A Staff Assessment.
82. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1979). OTA Priorities. http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ota/
83. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1977). Technology Assessment in Business and Government: Summary and Analysis. http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ota/
84. Paschen, H., and Petermann, T. (1991), Technikfolgen-Abschätzung. Ein strategisches Rahmenkonzept für die Analyse und Bewertung von Techniken, in T. Petermann (ed.), Technikfolgenabschätzung als Politikberatung, pp. 19-42. Frankfurt: Campus.
85. Pennock, J. R., and Chapman, J. R. (1979) Compromise in Ethics Law and Politics, Nomos XXI. New York: New York University Press.
86. Pharo, P. (2004). Morale et sociologie. Le sens et les valeurs entre nature et culture. Paris: Gallimard.
87. Pharo, P. (1991). Politique et savoir-vivre. Enquête sur les fondements du lien civil. Paris: L’Harmattan.
88. Putnam, H. (2002). The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy, and Other Essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
89. Rachels, J. (ed.). (1998). Ethical Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
90. Radder, H. (1996). In and about the World: Philosophical Studies of Science and Technology. Albany: State University of New York Press.
91. Reber, B. (2006a). Pluralisme moral: Les valeurs, les croyances et les théories morales. Archives de philosophie du droit, 48, (forthcoming)
92. Reber, B. (2006b). Théories morales et Cosmopolitiques. L’épreuve de l’évaluation technologique participative. J. Lolive and O. Soubeyran (eds.), Émergence des Cosmopolitiques et refondation de la pensée aménagiste, Paris: Centre Culturel International de Cerisy-la-Salle, La Découverte, (forthcoming).
93. Reber, B. (2006c). Les controverses scientifi ques. Paris, Encyclopaedia Universalis, La Science au présent 156-159.
94. Reber, B. (2005a). Public Evaluation and new Rules for ‘Human Park’, in B. Latour and P. Weibel, Making Things Public. Atmospheres of Democracy, pp. 314-119. Cambridge: MIT Press.
95. Reber, B. (2005b). Technologies et débat démocratique en Europe. Revue Française de Science Politique, 55, 811-833.
96. Reber, B. (2004). Ethique et évaluation technologique participative, in B. Castagna, S. Gallais, P. Ricaud, and J-P Roy (eds.), La situation délibérative dans le débat public, pp. 387-405 Tours: Presses Universitaires François Rabelais, vol. 2.
97. Reber, B. (2003). Les controverses scientifi ques publiques au secours de la démocratie, Cosmopolitiques, Cahiers théoriques pour l’écologie politique, 3, 93-107.
98. Renn, O. (1992). Risk Communication: Towards a Rational Discourse with the Public. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 29, 3, 465-519.
99. Renn, O., Webler T., and Kastenholz, H. (1996). Procedural and substantive fairness in landfi ll sitting: A Swiss case study, Risk: Health, Safety and Environment, 145-168.
100. Rescher, N. (1993). Pluralism. Against the Demand for Consensus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
101. Rip, A., Misa, T. J., and Schot, J. (eds.). (1995). Managing Technology in Society - The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment, London: Pinter.
102. Rosanvallon, P. (2004). Le mythe du citoyen passif, Le Monde, June 20-21, 1, 14.
103. Rosener, J. B. (1978). Citizen Participation: Can We Measure Its Effectiveness? Public Administration Review, 38(5), 457-463.
104. Rowe, G., and Frewer J. L. (2000). Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 25(1), 3-29.
105. Rowe, G., and Frewer J. L. (2004). Evaluating Public Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda Science, Technology & Human Values, 29(4), 512-557.
106. Sclove, R. (1999). The Democratic Politics of Technology: The Missing Half. The Loka Institute. Available online at http://www.loka.org/idt/intro.htm.
107. Sclove, R. (1995). Democracy and Technologies. New York: Guilford Press.
108. Shapin, S., and Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
109. Slocum, N. (2003). Participatory Methods Toolkit. A Practitioner’s Manual. Bruges: United Nations University.
110. Smith, B. L. (1992). The Advisers: Scientists in the Policy Process. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press.
111. Stengers, I. (1997). Cosmopolitiques, tome 7: Pour en fi nir avec la tolérance, Paris: La Découverte-Les Empêcheurs de penser en rond.
112. Stewart, J., Kendall, E., and Coote, A. (1994) Citizens’ Juries. London: IPPR.
113. Stirling, A. (1999). Precautionary and Science-Based Approaches to Risk Assessment and Environnental Appraisal. Sevilla: Institute for Prospective Technology Studies.
114. Sunstein, C. R. (2005a). The Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge University Press.
115. Sunstein, C. R. (2005b). Environmental Protection and Cost-Benefi t Analysis. Ethics, 115(2), 351-385.
116. Sunstein, C. R. (1996). Incompletely Theorized Agreements, Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 35-61.
117. Van Den Daele, W. (1995). Technology Assessment as a Political Experiment, in von Schomberg, R. (ed), Contested Technology, pp. 63-90. Tilburg: International Centre for Human and Public Affaires.
118. Van Eijndhoven, J. C. (1997). Technology Assessment: Product or Process? Technological Forecasting and Social change, 54, 269-286.
119. Von Prittwitz, V. (ed.). (1996). Verhandeln und Argumentieren. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.
120. Von Schomberg, R. (ed.). (1992). Science, Politics and Morality. Scientifi c Uncertainty and Decision Making. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
121. Veasey, K. (2002). Citizen Jury Handbook, Minneapolis, MN: Jefferson Center.
122. Whiteside, K. H. (2003). French Regulatory Republicanism and the Risks of Genetically Modifi ed Crops. French Politic, 1, 153-174.
123. Zaccaï, E., and Missa, J-N. (2000). Le Principe de précaution. Signifi cations et conséquences. Bruxelles: Ed. de l’Université de Bruxelles.