Why do we still need participatory technology assessment?
Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):27-41 (2012)
| Abstract | The paper contributes to the current discussion on the role of participatory methods in the context of technology assessment (TA) and science and technology (S&T) governance. It is argued that TA has to be understood as a form of democratic policy consulting in the sense of the Habermasian model of a “pragmatist” relation of science and politics. This notion implies that public participation is an indispensable element of TA in the context of policy advice. Against this background, participatory TA (pTA) is defended against recent criticism of procedures of lay participation which states that pTA is lacking impact on S&T decision making, that pTA instead of opening S&T policies to new perspectives is used as a means to support mainstream S&T policy and that in pTA procedure the authentic lay perspective is systematically contorted by dominant expert knowledge | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,865 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesErich Griessler (2012). 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.
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.
Thomas Saretzki (2012). Legitimation Problems of Participatory Processes in Technology Assessment and Technology Policy. Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):7-26.
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.
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.
David H. Guston (2011). Participating Despite Questions: Toward a More Confident Participatory Technology Assessment. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):691-697.
Leonhard Hennen (2004). Biomedical and Bioethical Issues in Parliamentary TA and in Health Technology Assessment. Poiesis and Praxis 2 (s 2-3):207-220.
Barbara Skorupinski & Konrad Ott (2002). Technology Assessment and Ethics. Poiesis and Praxis 1 (2):95-122.
Charles Thorpe (2010). Participation as Post-Fordist Politics: Demos, New Labour, and Science Policy. Minerva 48 (4):389-411.
Karl Rogers (2008). Participatory Democracy, Science and Technology: An Exploration in the Philosophy of Science. Palgrave Macmillan.
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. AI and Society 13 (1-2):22-43.
Diego Compagna (2012). Lost in Translation? The Dilemma of Alignment Within Participatory Technology Developments. Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):125-143.
Michael Zschiesche (2012). Assessing Project Approval Procedures as Formalised Forms of Public Participation. Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):145-156.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2012-11-13Total downloads0Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
