Participatory methods aim to address controversy over new technologies through public consultation. This paper first describes the emergence of participatory methods within the framework of technology assessment, then provides an overview of the landscape of participatory arrangements; and, finally, discusses participatory methods in relation to different democratic ideals. The article challenges the widespread assumption that participatory methods can function as normatively neutral tools, which can readily be employed in various social and political settings. Through a case study of consensus conferences (...) on GMOs in three European countries, the article investigates the interpretive processes that take place when participatory procedures are applied in new national political settings. (shrink)

Over the past ten years there has been an increased awareness of the importance of stakeholder involvement and public participation in policy making. However, despite the general consensus that stakeholder participation is important within decision-making, the debate as to how that participation should be undertaken and how the various methods for participation should be evaluated continues. This paper presents a number of possible evaluation criteria, suggesting that the appraisal of both procedures and outcomes needs to include consideration of the legitimacy (...) of the procedure, in addition to the more common efficiency evaluation of procedures and outcomes. Together with experience from case studies, these criteria are then used to highlight the main promises and pitfalls of the various participation procedures. (shrink)

Analyses of participation usually assume a dichotomy between 'instrumental' and 'transformative' approaches. However, this study of voluntary biological monitoring experiences and outcomes finds that they cannot be fitted into such a dichotomy. They can enhance the information base for environmental management; change participants through education about scientific practice and ecological change; lead to changes in life direction or group organisation; and influence decision-makers. Personal transformation can take place within a conventionally top-down context. Conversely, grassroots data collection can shore up the (...) status quo and protect local interests. Partnerships between actors can provide distinct but complementary and mutually rewarding outcomes. Power is not located in a data-consuming centre, and data are not meaningless materials that leave the collector unmoved. A more dynamic model of human-nature relations is presented which connects humans and information in the participatory process. (shrink)

Inclusivity is widely considered a requirement of defensible environmental risk consultations and is often either mandated or recommended to help ensure attention to stakeholders’ diverse views. Experience suggests the opposite: the emphasis on an inclusive consultation process often makes it impossible for decision makers to listen carefully to stakeholders and for citizens’ views to influence the design and choice of proposed actions. This paper briefly reviews the promise of environmental risk consultations before outlining several of the more serious problems associated (...) with an emphasis on inclusivity: long lists of undifferentiated concerns, facts tainted by stakeholders’ perspectives and worldviews, little access to clarifying dialogue or tests of expertise, few opportunities to scrutinize knowledge quality, avoidance of controversial issues, and an overwhelming abundance of information. As a result, the promotion of inclusivity often serves as a convenient excuse for decision makers to silence citizens by substituting quantity for quality, breadth for depth, and an adversarial approach for dialogue and informed understanding. (shrink)

The significance of political-economic context for scientific citizenship is argued through an analysis of New Zealand’s Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. My intention is not to provide an account of why the commission came to the decisions it did but to illustrate how the political-economic context and the culture of regulatory science both exacerbate public concerns about unacknowledged uncertainty and commercial influence and make it difficult for those concerns to influence the outcomes of public dialogues. The discursive flexibility of science (...) as alternately predictive and provisional silences concerns about uncertainty, while a further interpretive choice of science as the autonomous activities of individuals unconstrained by political-economic context occludes the nature of concerns about commercial influence. Rather than the increasingly prevalent focus on processes of engagement, I argue that it is essential that researchers in this area attend to how public dialogue is placed in relation to the cultures and structures of regulatory science and neoliberalism. (shrink)

The politics of innovation involves displacements between various interrelated settings ranging from the context of design to the context of use. This variety of settings and their particular qualities raise questions about the democratic implications of displacements, which have been addressed within science and technology studies for decades from different perspectives and along various theoretical strands. This article distinguishes five different traditions of conceptualizing the relation between technological innovation and democracy: an intentionalist, a proceduralist, an actor—network, an interpretivist, and a (...) performative perspective. They differ in their concepts of “technology,” “politics,” and “democracy”; they imply different roles for the analyst and they suggest or urge other political means. It is suggested that spelling out the differences and similarities between the five perspectives creates the possibility to overcome the limitations of any particular perspective of technology and democracy. (shrink)

A consensus conference can be used to enable ordinary citizens to have informed input into policy making concerning controversial science and technology issues. To test whether this process could be used at a local level, facilitated by expertise from a university, McMaster University and the City of Hamilton, Ontario, cosponsored a regional consensus conference on waste management. This article describes this experience and evaluates it from three perspectives: how well the process satisfied the criteria of a good public participation process, (...) how much impact the conference had, and how well the positive role envisioned for university involvement was satisfied. Lessons learned are outlined briefly. (shrink)

Contemporary science and technology research are now expected to become more responsible through collaboration with social scientists and scholars from the humanities. This paper suggests a frame explaining why such current calls for ‘integration’ are seen as appropriate across sectors even though there are no shared understanding of how proper integration is to take place. The call for integration is understood as a response to shifting roles of ethics within research structures following shifts in modes of knowledge production. Integration is (...) difficult, this paper suggests, because it challenges the modern normative division of labor affecting professional identities across sectors. Working out modes of integration is one important venue for working out alternative professional identities on the one hand and viable alternative understandings of research on the other hand. This paper discusses the matter with reference to three successive idioms for thinking about science, technology and society discussed in the literature; the representational, performative and co-production idiom. (shrink)

The idea of public or stakeholder engagement in governance of science and technology is widely accepted in many policy and academic research settings. However, this enthusiasm for stakeholder engagement has not necessarily resulted in changes of attitudes toward the role of stakeholders in the dialogue nor to the value of public knowledge, practical experience, and other inputs (like salient questions) vis-à-vis expert knowledge. The formal systems of evaluation of the stakeholder engagement activities are often focused on showing that the method (...) is efficient and works. In this article, we argue that every stakeholder engagement process should be evaluated beyond a simple assessment of the methodology and that the wider context of the stakeholder engagement activity should also be addressed. We evaluate two different stakeholder engagement activities against the existing method evaluation criteria and demonstrate their limitations for assessing the quality of a stakeholder engagement. We argue that these criteria need to be extended so that engagement processes will have a chance to improve not only policies but also their democratic legitimacy. (shrink)