Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. “Opening Up” and “Closing Down”: Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology.Andy Stirling - 2008 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 33 (2):262-294.
    Discursive deference in the governance of science and technology is rebalancing from expert analysis toward participatory deliberation. Linear, scientistic conceptions of innovation are giving ground to more plural, socially situated understandings. Yet, growing recognition of social agency in technology choice is countered by persistently deterministic notions of technological progress. This article addresses this increasingly stark disjuncture. Distinguishing between “appraisal” and “commitment” in technology choice, it highlights contrasting implications of normative, instrumental, and substantive imperatives in appraisal. Focusing on the role of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   54 citations  
  • Being Expert: L’Aquila and Issues of Inclusion in Science-Policy Decision Making.Danielle DeVasto - 2016 - Social Epistemology 30 (4):372-397.
    Responding to the call to provide guidance for incorporating diverse perspectives in science-policy debate, Collins and Evans’ normative model of expertise provides a useful starting point for deciding who gets to come to the table—expertise and experience. However, new materialist critiques highlight the epistemic challenges of such an approach. Drawing on the work of Annemarie Mol, I propose that the theory of multiple ontologies and a practise-based orientation can enrich conversations about expertise and inclusion in science-policy decision-making, particularly in matters (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • (1 other version)Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism?Chantal Mouffe - 1999 - Social Research: An International Quarterly 66 (3):745-758.
    One of the main reasons that liberal democratic societies are not ill-prepared to confront the present challenge presented by disaffection with democratic institutions, is that the type of political theory currently in vogue is dominated by an individualistic, universalistic, and rationalistic framework. This erases the dimension of the political and impedes envisaging in an adequate manner the nature of a pluralistic democratic public sphere. This paper examines the most recent paradigm of liberal democracy: 'deliberative democracy', in order to bring to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   143 citations  
  • Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry.Helen E. Longino - 1990 - Princeton University Press.
    This is an important book precisely because there is none other quite like it.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1110 citations  
  • Technology Theory and Deliberative Democracy.Patrick W. Hamlett - 2003 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 28 (1):112-140.
    This article examines the debate about the normative relevance of social constructivism, arguing that the criticisms of Winner, Radder, and others are fundamentally accurate. The article argues that a combination of Radder's notion of nonlocal values and Martin's concern for deliberative interventions may offer a theoretical exit from the normative irrelevance that marks constructivism. The article goes on to suggest that theoretical and praxeological developments in two other literatures, participatory public policy analysis and deliberative democracy, may provide fruitful initiatives for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  • (1 other version)Science as Social Knowledge.Sharon L. Crasnow - 1992 - Hypatia 8 (3):194-201.
    In Science as Social Knowledge, Helen Longino offers a contextual analysis of evidential relevance. She claims that this "contextual empiricism" reconciles the objectivity of science with the claim that science is socially constructed. I argue that while her account does offer key insights into the role that values play in science, her claim that science is nonetheless objective is problematic.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   160 citations  
  • Reflexive public deliberation: Democracy and the limits of pluralism.James Bohman - 2003 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 29 (1):85-105.
    Deliberative democracy defends an ideal of equality as political efficacy. Jorge Valadez offers a defense of such an ideal given cultural pluralism of ethnopolitical groups. He develops an epistemological account of the fact of pluralism as entailing incommensurable conceptual frameworks. While his account goes a long way towards identifying the problems with neutrality and many other liberal solutions to the problem of pluralism, it is still too liberal in certain ways. First, he draws the limits of deliberation and political inclusion (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Evaluating the First U.S. Consensus Conference: The Impact of the Citizens’ Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy.David H. Guston - 1999 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 24 (4):451-482.
    Consensus conferences, also known as citizens’ panels—a collection of lay citizens akin to a jury but charged with deliberating on policy issues with a high technical content—are a potentially important way to conduct technology assessments, inform policy makers about public views of new technologies, and improve public understanding of and participation in technological decision making. The first citizens’ panel in the United States occurred in April 1997 on the issue of “Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy.” This article evaluates the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • Towards Democratic Models of Science: Exploring the Case of Scientific Pluralism.Jeroen Van Bouwel - 2015 - Perspectives on Science 23 (2):149-172.
    Scientific pluralism, a normative endorsement of the plurality or multiplicity of research approaches in science, has recently been advocated by several philosophers (e.g., Kellert et al. 2006, Kitcher 2001, Longino 2013, Mitchell 2009, and Chang 2010). Comparing these accounts of scientific pluralism, one will encounter quite some variation. We want to clarify the different interpretations of scientific pluralism by showing how they incarnate different models of democracy, stipulating the desired interaction among the plurality of research approaches in different ways. Furthermore, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Machineries for Making Publics: Inscribing and De-scribing Publics in Public Engagement.Ulrike Felt & Maximilian Fochler - 2010 - Minerva 48 (3):219-238.
    This paper investigates the dynamic and performative construction of publics in public engagement exercises. In this investigation, we, on the one hand, analyse how public engagement settings as political machineries frame particular kinds of roles and identities for the participating publics in relation to ‘the public at large’. On the other hand, we study how the participating citizens appropriate, resist and transform these roles and identities, and how they construct themselves and the participating group in relation to wider publics. The (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations  
  • Where Are the Politics? Perspectives on Democracy and Technology.Harro van Lente & Roel Nahuis - 2008 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 33 (5):559-581.
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Democracy and Disagreement.Amy Gutmann & Dennis Thompson - 1996 - Ethics 108 (3):607-610.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   451 citations  
  • Interactive Technology Assessment in the Real World: Dual Dynamics in an iTA Exercise on Genetically Modified Vines.Arie Rip, Pierre-Benoit Joly & Claire Marris - 2008 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 33 (1):77-100.
    Participatory Technology Assessment initiatives have usually been analyzed as if they existed in a social and political vacuum. This article analyzes the linkages that occur, in both directions, between the microcosm set up by a pTA exercise and the real world outside. This dual-dynamics perspective leads to a new way of understanding the function and significance of pTA initiatives. Rather than viewing them as a means to create the ideal conditions for real public debate, they are viewed here as an (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Consuming, Engaging and Confronting Science: The Emerging Dimensions of Scientific Citizenship.Margareta Bertilsson & Mark Elam - 2003 - European Journal of Social Theory 6 (2):233-251.
    As the distance between science and society is collapsed with the growth of contemporary knowledge societies, so a range of different approaches to the democratic governance of science superseding its Enlightenment government is emerging. In light of these different approaches, this article focuses on the figure of the scientific citizen and the variable dimensions of a new scientific citizenship. Three models of democracy - advanced consumer, deliberative and radical/pluralist - are put forward as both partly competing and partly complementary frameworks (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  • Lose One Another... and Find One Another in Nanospace. ‘Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow’s Society: A Case for Reflective Action Research in Flanders ’. [REVIEW]Lieve Goorden, Michiel Van Oudheusden, Johan Evers & Marian Deblonde - 2008 - NanoEthics 2 (3):213-230.
    The main objective of the Flemish research project ‘Nanotechnologies for tomorrow’s society’ (NanoSoc) is to develop and try out an interactive process as a suitable methodology for rendering nanoresearchers aware of underlying assumptions that guide nanotech research and integrating social considerations into the research choices they face. In particular, the NanoSoc process should sustain scientists’ capacities to address growing uncertainties on the strategic, scientific and public acceptance level. The article elaborates on these uncertainties and involved dilemmas scientists are facing and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Co-creating Nano-imaginaries: Report of a Delphi-Exercise.Lieve Goorden, Johan Evers, Michiel Van Oudheusden & Marian Deblonde - 2008 - Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 28 (5):372-389.
    In the first phase of the research project Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow's Society (www.nanosoc.be), the research consortium explored a variety of futuristic visions or technoscientific imaginaries. This exploration took the form of a Policy Delphi, adapted to the particular objective of jointly constructing nano-imaginaries, taking participants' personal visions of possible future applications and societal issues as a starting point. The participants were nanoresearchers, as well as societal experts and primary involved citizens. In this article, the authors describe the theoretical frame that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • A Democracy Paradox in Studies of Science and Technology.Silke Beck, Roger Pielke & Eva Lövbrand - 2011 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 36 (4):474-496.
    Today many scholars seem to agree that citizens should be involved in expert deliberations on science and technology issues. This interest in public deliberation has gained attraction in many practical settings, especially in the European Union, and holds the promise of more legitimate governance of science and technology. In this article, the authors draw on the European Commission’s report ‘‘Taking the European Knowledge Society Seriously’’ to ask how legitimate these efforts to ‘‘democratize’’ scientific expertise really are. While the report borrows (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Participating in the tension.Frank Laird - 1993 - Social Epistemology 7 (1):35 – 46.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation