From invited to uninvited participation (and back?): rethinking civil society engagement in technology assessment and development
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):43-60 (2012)
In recent years, citizens’ and civil society engagement with science and technology has become almost synonymous with participation in institutionally organized formats of participatory technology assessment (pTA) such as consensus conferences or stakeholder dialogues. Contrary to this view, it is argued in the article that beyond these standardized models of “invited” participation, there exist various forms of “uninvited” and independent civil society engagement, which frequently not only have more significant impact but are profoundly democratically legitimate as well. Using the two examples of patient associations and environmental and consumer organizations in the field of nanotechnology, it is illustrated that interest-based civil society interventions do play an important role in the polycentric governance of science and technology. In conclusion, some implications for the activities of TA institutions and the design of novel TA procedures are outlined
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|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.
Michael Zschiesche (2012). Assessing Project Approval Procedures as Formalised Forms of Public Participation. Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):145-156.
Gary Alan Fine & Brooke Harrington (2004). Tiny Publics: Small Groups and Civil Society. Sociological Theory 22 (3):341-356.
Thomas Saretzki (2012). Legitimation Problems of Participatory Processes in Technology Assessment and Technology Policy. Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):7-26.
Charles Thorpe (2010). Participation as Post-Fordist Politics: Demos, New Labour, and Science Policy. [REVIEW] Minerva 48 (4):389-411.
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.
Karl Rogers (2008). Participatory Democracy, Science and Technology: An Exploration in the Philosophy of Science. Palgrave Macmillan.
Haico Te Kulve & Arie Rip (2011). Constructing Productive Engagement: Pre-Engagement Tools for Emerging Technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):699-714.
Gideon Baker (2001). Civil Society Theory and Republican Democracy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 4 (2):59-84.
Lotte Krabbenborg (2013). DuPont and Environmental Defense Fund Co-Constructing a Risk Framework for Nanoscale Materials: An Occasion to Reflect on Interaction Processes in a Joint Inquiry. [REVIEW] Nanoethics 7 (1):45-54.
David H. Guston (2011). Participating Despite Questions: Toward a More Confident Participatory Technology Assessment. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):691-697.
Philip Oxhorn (2007). Civil Society Without a State? Transnational Civil Society and the Challenge of Democracy in a Globalizing World. World Futures 63 (5 & 6):324 – 339.
Sheila Jasanoff (2011). Constitutional Moments in Governing Science and Technology. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):621-638.
Umut Korkut (2007). Participatory Policy-Making, Participatory Civil Society: A Key for Dissolving Elite Rule in New Democracies in the Era of Globalization. World Futures 63 (5 & 6):340 – 352.
Margaret Ann Griesse (2007). Caterpillar's Interactions with Piracicaba, Brazil: A Community-Based Analysis of CSR. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 73 (1):39 - 51.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-11-16
Total downloads1 ( #301,481 of 1,004,711 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,743 of 1,004,711 )
How can I increase my downloads?