Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 673–690 | Cite as

Questioning ‘Participation’: A Critical Appraisal of its Conceptualization in a Flemish Participatory Technology Assessment

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

This article draws attention to struggles inherent in discourse about the meaning of participation in a Flemish participatory technology assessment (pTA) on nanotechnologies. It explores how, at the project’s outset, key actors (e.g., nanotechnologists and pTA researchers) frame elements of the process like ‘the public’ and draw on interpretive repertoires to fit their perspective. The examples call into question normative commitments to cooperation, consensus building, and common action that conventionally guide pTA approaches. It is argued that pTA itself must reflect an awareness of competing interests and perspectives inherent in the discourse associated with the meaning of ‘participation’ if it is to incite action beyond vested interests and ensure genuine mutual learning.

Keywords

Discourse Nanotechnology Participatory technology assessment Power 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers, Stefan Aerts, Lieve Goorden, Brice Laurent, Ilse Loots, and Michaela Spencer for helpful comments on previous versions of this article. Above all I am grateful to Johan Evers, with whom I explored and developed many of the ideas contained in this article. The study was made possible through the Fund for Scientific Research—Flanders (FWO).

References

  1. Abels, G. (2007). Citizen involvement in public policy-making: Does it improve democratic legitimacy and accountability? The case of pTA. Interdisciplinary Information Sciences, 13(1), 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bijker, W. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites and bulbs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Deblonde, M., van Oudheusden, M., Evers, J., & Goorden, L. (2008). Co-creating nano-imaginaries. Bulletin of Science and Technology, 28(5), 372–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dewulf, A. (2005). Issue framing in multi-actor contexts. How people make sense of issues through negotiating meaning, enacting discourse and doing differences. Ph.D. dissertation, K. U. Leuven.Google Scholar
  5. Dewulf, A., Craps, M., & Dercon, G. (2004). How issues get framed and reframed when different communities meet: A multi-level analysis of a collaborative soil conservation initiative in the Ecuadorian Andes. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14, 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dryzek, J. (1990). Discursive democracy. Politics, policy and political science. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dryzek, J. & Niemeyer, S. (2003). Pluralism and consensus in political deliberation. Paper for the 2003 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, August 28–31.Google Scholar
  8. Dryzek, J., & Niemeyer, S. (2006). Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 634–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Epstein, S. (1995). The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology & Human Values, 20(4), 408–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  11. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy. Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Habermas and foucault: Thinkers for civil society? British Journal of Sociology, 49(2), 210–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foucault, M. (1976). Histoire de la sexualité. La volonté de savoir. Paris: Galimard.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (1977). Language counter-memory practice (D.F. Bouchard & S. Simon, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  16. Genus, A., & Coles, A. M. (2005). On constructive technology assessment and limitations on public participation in technology assessment. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 17(4), 433–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilbert, N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. Hardmondsworth: Penguin books.Google Scholar
  19. Goorden, L., van Oudheusden, M., Evers, J., & Deblonde, M. (2008a). Nanotechnologies for tomorrow’s society: A case for reflective action research in Flanders, Belgium. In E. Fisher, C. Selin, & J. Wetmore (Eds.), Presenting futures. Yearbook of nanotechnology in society (Vol. 1, pp. 163–182). Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goorden, L., van Oudheusden, M., Evers, J., & Deblonde, M. (2008b). Lose one another… and find one another in nanospace. ‘Nanotechnologies for tomorrow’s society: A case for reflective action research in flanders (NanoSoc)’. Nanoethics, 2(3), 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grin, J., & van de Graaf, H. (1996a). Implementation as communicative action. An interpretive understanding of interactions between policy actors and target groups. Policy Sciences, 29, 291–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grin, J., & van de Graaf, H. (1996b). Technology assessment as learning. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21(1), 72–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grin, J., van de Graaf, H., & Hoppe, R. (1997). Interactive technology assessment. Een eerste gids voor wie het wagen wil. Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut.Google Scholar
  24. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Guston, D. H. (1998). Evaluating the impact of the first US citizens’ panel on ‘Telecommunications and the future of democracy.’ Paper for the 1998 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, September 3–6.Google Scholar
  26. Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1–2), 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse. Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hronzsky, I. (2001). Toward “lay” participation and co-operative learning in TA, technology policy and construction of technologies. In M. Decker (Ed.), Interdisciplinarity in technology assessment. Implementation and its chances and limits (Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung; Bd. 11) (pp. 95–122). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Jasanoff, S. (2002). Citizens at risk: Cultures of modernity in the US and EU. Science as Culture, 11(3), 363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson, J. (1998). Arguing for deliberation: Some skeptical considerations. In J. Elster (Ed.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 161–184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Joss, S. (1995). Evaluating consensus conferences: Necessity or luxury? In S. Joss & J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe (pp. 89–108). London: The Science Museum.Google Scholar
  33. Joy, B. (2000). Why the future doesn’t need us. Wired, 8, 238–262.Google Scholar
  34. Laurent, B. (2007). Engaging the public in nanotechnology? Competing meanings of public engagement. Paper presented at the Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Santa Barbara, CA.Google Scholar
  35. Laurent, B., & Fisher, E. (2008). Integration discourses: Neo-determinism, reflexivity, and the mainstreaming of science studies. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  36. Leeuwis, C. (2000). Voorbij het onderscheid tussen experts en leken. Over de rol en betekenis van expertise in participatieve processen. Pedagogiek, 20(4), 347–361.Google Scholar
  37. Lewenstein, B. V. (2003). Models of public communication of science and technology. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 1–11.Google Scholar
  38. Lorenzet, A. (2008). Closure through Unclosure. A perspective on the role of conflict in the study of technological controversies. Paper for the science and technology in society conference, Washington, DC, April 5–6.Google Scholar
  39. Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication, 27(2), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mayer, I. (1997). Debating technologies. A methodological contribution to the design and evaluation of participatory policy analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
  41. McKenzie, P. J. (2005). Interpretative repertoires. In K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez, & E. F. Lynne McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 221–224). Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.Google Scholar
  42. Moss, P., & Schutz, A. (2001). Educational standards, assessment, and the search for consensus. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 37–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  44. Nowotny, H. (2005). Experten, expertisen und imaginierte Laien. In A. Bogner & H. Togersen (Eds.), Wozu experten? Ambivalenzen der Beziehung zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik (pp. 33–44). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  45. NPD (Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow’s Society Project Description). (2005). 50 pp.Google Scholar
  46. Phillips, L., & Jorgensen, M. W. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14, 391–441.Google Scholar
  48. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1995). Discourse analysis. In J. A. Smith, R. Harré, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 80–92). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Rienstra, B., & Hook, D. (2006). Weakening Habermas: The undoing of communicative rationality. Politikon, 33(3), 313–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rip, A. (1986). Controversies as informal technology assessment. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8(2), 349–371.Google Scholar
  51. Rip, A. (2000). Following actors—Then what? Invited paper for the Seminar Neuere Ansätze und Methoden in der Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung, Technische Universität Darmstadt, May 5.Google Scholar
  52. Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 54(2&3), 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stirling, A. (2006). Resolving environmental conflicts: Combining participation and multi-criteria analysis. Land Use Policy, 23(1), 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stirling, A. (2008). “Opening up” and “closing down”. Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33(2), 262–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Swierstra, T., & Rip, A. (2007). Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics, 1(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tutton, R. (2007). Constructing participation in genetic databases. Citizenship, governance, and ambivalence. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 32(2), 172–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. van den Hoonard, W. (1997). Working with sensitizing concepts. Analytical field research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  60. van den Hove, S. (2006). Between consensus and compromise: Acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches. Land Use Policy, 23(1), 10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van Oudheusden, M., Evers, J., Deblonde, M., & Goorden, L. (2007). “Nano-imaginaries” in a future smart environment. Breakdown of a Three Round Delphi Study. Report written for the Flemish Institute for the Advancement of Innovation through Science and Technology (IWT), Belgium, 49 pp.Google Scholar
  62. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. West, T. (1996). Beyond dissensus: Exploring the heuristic value of conflict. Rhetoric Review, 15(1), 142–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1988). Discourse analysis and the identification of interpretive repertoires. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 168–183). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  65. Wilhelmson, L. (2002). On the theory of transformative learning. In A. Bron & M. Schemmann (Eds.), Social science theories in adult education research (Bochum Studies in International Education; 3) (pp. 180–210). Münster: LIT.Google Scholar
  66. Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis. Methods for studying action in talk and text. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Vlaanderen, Department of Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpenBelgium

Personalised recommendations