Graduate studies at Western
Nanoethics 5 (1):115-128 (2011)
|Abstract||This paper reflects on the change of relations among participants in nanotechnology governance through their participation in governance processes such as stakeholder dialogues. I show that policymaking in practice—that is, the practice of coming and working together in such stakeholder dialogues—has the potential for two-fold performative effects: it can contribute to the development of trust and mutual responsibility on the part of the involved actors, and it may bring about effects on the formation of boundaries of what is sayable and thinkable in nanotechnology governance. Three vignettes about the work of the German NanoKommission indicate the development of new relations of trust, recognition and mutual responsibility among actors. It is concluded that governance in practice can assemble new collectives in which relations of trust are the glue holding the complex structure together. While such a consensus-based progress may be favourable for smooth technology development, it can be considered problematic if evaluated against the ideals of deliberative democracy, which often form the premises on which public engagement is based. Stakeholder forums were set in place with the intention of including various actors, but this is Janus-faced: if a dialogue becomes encapsulated in new governance networks, new exclusions can arise. For example, a policing of which information is released to a wider audience can occur|
|Keywords||Nanotechnology governance German nanotechnology politics Governance networks Deliberative democracy Performative trust Public dialogue Public engagement|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Heidrun Ã…M. (2011). Trust as Glue in Nanotechnology Governance Networks. Nanoethics 5 (1):115-128.
Ineke Malsch (2013). Governing Nanotechnology in a Multi-Stakeholder World. Nanoethics 7 (2):161-172.
Matthew Kearnes & Brian Wynne (2007). On Nanotechnology and Ambivalence: The Politics of Enthusiasm. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 1 (2):131-142.
Evisa Kica & Diana M. Bowman (2013). Transnational Governance Arrangements: Legitimate Alternatives to Regulating Nanotechnologies? [REVIEW] Nanoethics 7 (1):69-82.
Ranjan Karri, Cam Caldwell, Elena P. Antonacopoulou & Daniel C. Naegle (2005). Building Trust in Business Schools Through Ethical Governance. Journal of Academic Ethics 3 (2-4):159-182.
Cam Caldwell & Ranjan Karri (2005). Organizational Governance and Ethical Systems: A Covenantal Approach to Building Trust. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 58 (1-3):249 - 259.
Katherine Marshall (2008). Ancient and Contemporary Wisdom and Practice on Governance as Religious Leaders Engage in International Development. Journal of Global Ethics 4 (3):217 – 229.
Ana Viseu & Heather Maguire (2012). Integrating and Enacting 'Social and Ethical Issues' in Nanotechnology Practices. Nanoethics 6 (3):195-209.
Ann K. Buchholtz (2001). Trust, Risk, and Shareholder Decision Making. Business Ethics Quarterly 11 (1):177-193.
Darryl Reed (2002). Corporate Governance Reforms in Developing Countries. Journal of Business Ethics 37 (3):223 - 247.
Clive Smallman (2004). Exploring Theoretical Paradigms in Corporate Governance. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics 1 (1):78-94.
Bryan W. Husted & Carlos Serrano (2002). Corporate Governance in Mexico. Journal of Business Ethics 37 (3):337 - 348.
Andreas Rasche (2012). Global Policies and Local Practice. Business Ethics Quarterly 22 (4):679-708.
Williams (2005). Disclosure Strategies. Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 16:234-239.
Added to index2011-04-08
Total downloads5 ( #170,765 of 751,836 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,163 of 751,836 )
How can I increase my downloads?