One size fits all? On the institutionalization of participatory technology assessment and its interconnection with national ways of policy-making: the cases of Switzerland and Austria
Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):61-80 (2012)
|Abstract||Science and technology policy is often confronted with issues that are both complex and controversial and which have to be decided upon in a delicate constellation of policy-makers, experts, stakeholders, non-governmental organizations and the public. One attempt to deal with such a complex problem is via citizen involvement. Participatory technology assessment (pTA) already goes back to several decades, and countries have made various experiences. While in some countries, governments established technology assessment organizations, which also included pTA in their methodological portfolio, others primarily rely on experts to make decisions on science and technology policy. In a third group of countries non-state actors, such as social scientists, experimented with pTA. However, they were often unable to link these experiments to policy-making. This paper deals with the question of why this variation exists and compares the use of pTA in Switzerland and Austria. Despite similarities between the two countries, both had quite different experiences with pTA so far. Whereas several pTAs have been carried out in Switzerland until today, Austrian pTAs have remained infrequent. The aim of this paper is to explain this difference as a result of different ways of policy-making which affect the use and chances of pTA|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Leonhard Hennen (2012). Why Do We Still Need Participatory Technology Assessment? Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):27-41.
Thomas Saretzki (2012). Legitimation Problems of Participatory Processes in Technology Assessment and Technology Policy. Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):7-26.
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.
Leonhard Hennen (2004). Biomedical and Bioethical Issues in Parliamentary TA and in Health Technology Assessment. Poiesis and Praxis 2 (s 2-3):207-220.
David H. Guston (2011). Participating Despite Questions: Toward a More Confident Participatory Technology Assessment. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):691-697.
Barbara Skorupinski (2002). Putting Precaution to Debate – About the Precautionary Principle and Participatory Technology Assessment. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15 (1):87-102.
Barbara Skorupinski & Konrad Ott (2002). Technology Assessment and Ethics. Poiesis and Praxis 1 (2):95-122.
Corinna Jung (2009). Towards More Confidence: About the Roles of Social Scientists in Participatory Policy Making. Poiesis and Praxis 6 (1-2):125-129.
René von Schomberg (ed.) (1993). Science, Politics, and Morality: Scientific Uncertainty and Decision Making. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Peter Wehling (2012). From Invited to Uninvited Participation (and Back?): Rethinking Civil Society Engagement in Technology Assessment and Development. Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):43-60.
Sybil Francis (1999). Developing a Federal Policy on Research Misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):261-272.
Rob Reuzel (2004). Interactive Technology Assessment of Paediatric Cochlear Implantation. Poiesis and Praxis 2 (s 2-3):119-137.
Robert Frodeman (2005). The Role of Humanities Policy in Public Science. Environmental Philosophy 2 (1):5-13.
Karen Kastenhofer & Doris Allhutter (2010). Technoscience and Technology Assessment. Poiesis and Praxis 7 (1-2):1-4.
David Wright (2011). A Framework for the Ethical Impact Assessment of Information Technology. Ethics and Information Technology 13 (3):199-226.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-11-16
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?