Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):125-143 (2012)
|Abstract||As an instrument for participatory technology development, Scenario-Based Design offers significant potential for an early inclusion of future users. Over the course of a 3-year research project, this method was examined as a procedure for participatory technology development. Methods and instruments aimed at achieving a potential user’s participation, and the resulting cooperation of heterogeneous social groups can be seen as translation tools. Their purpose is to act as translators between different social fields and the specific knowledge associated with them. These translation capabilities and participatory methods should result in the best possible convergence of different orientations and purposes. In this paper, attempting to achieve the best possible convergence is described as a dilemma of alignment. Several approaches will be used to describe the dynamic of the alignment dilemma within the above-mentioned project. The reconstruction follows one question that is proposed as a heuristic pattern to meet the requirements of an accurate analysis of holistic participatory methods: Who or what has to adjust to whom or what, why, when, and in which way? The main conclusions include the finding that the alignment dilemma is not equally balanced, that the agency of epistemic objects within the process has to be captured, and that it is easy for translation—provided primarily by core instruments of the participatory method used—to begin to overwrite the needs and purposes of one social group with the interests and orientations of another|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Thomas Saretzki (2012). Legitimation Problems of Participatory Processes in Technology Assessment and Technology Policy. Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):7-26.
Leonhard Hennen (2012). Why Do We Still Need Participatory Technology Assessment? Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):27-41.
Nicholas John Munn (2012). Reconciling the Criminal and Participatory Responsibilities of the Youth. Social Theory and Practice 38 (1):139-159.
Douglas C. Walton (2007). Is Modern Information Technology Enabling the Evolution of a More Direct Democracy? World Futures 63 (5 & 6):365 – 385.
Karl Rogers (2008). Participatory Democracy, Science and Technology: An Exploration in the Philosophy of Science. Palgrave Macmillan.
Masudul Alam Choudhury, Saiful I. Zaman & Sofyan Syafri Harahap (2007). An Evolutionary Topological Theory of Participatory Socioeconomic Development. World Futures 63 (8):584 – 598.
James Morauta (2002). Rights and Participatory Goods. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 22 (1):91-113.
Michiel van Oudheusden (2011). Questioning 'Participation': A Critical Appraisal of its Conceptualization in a Flemish Participatory Technology Assessment. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):673-690.
Corinna Jung (2009). Towards More Confidence: About the Roles of Social Scientists in Participatory Policy Making. Poiesis and Praxis 6 (1-2):125-129.
Yukio Wakamatsu (1999). A Citizens' Conference on Gene Therapy in Japan: A Feasibility Study of the Consensus Conference Method in Japan. [REVIEW] AI and Society 13 (1-2):22-43.
Armin Grunwald (2004). Participation as a Means of Enhancing the Legitimacy of Decisions on Technology? A Sceptical Analysis. Poiesis and Praxis 3 (s 1-2):106-122.
Stuart Umpleby, Tatiana Medvedeva & Alisa Oyler (2004). The Technology of Participation as a Means of Improving Universities in Transitional Economies. World Futures 60 (1 & 2):129 – 136.
Barbara Skorupinski & Konrad Ott (2002). Technology Assessment and Ethics. Poiesis and Praxis 1 (2):95-122.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-11-14
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?