Skip to main content

Governance-Innovationen

Epistemische und politische Reflexivitäten in der Herstellung von Citizen Panels

  • 3243 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Mit Reflexivität ist es so eine Sache. Sie findet kein Ende. Lässt man sich einmal darauf ein, nicht nur einfach darauf los zu tun, sich also Interaktionsprozessen und ihren Dynamiken hinzugeben und daraus entstehenden Strukturen anzupassen, sondern statt dessen dieses Tun selbst zum Gegenstand von Beobachtung, Kommunikation und neuem Tun zu machen, gibt es keine Entrinnen mehr.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-10874-8_15
  • Chapter length: 29 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-658-10874-8
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • Amelung, N. (2012). The emergence of citizen panels as a de facto standard. Quaderni, 79, 13-28. doi: quaderni.revues.org/616.

  • Andersen, I.-E., & Jæger, B. (1999). Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: towards more democratic decision-making. Science and public policy 26 (5), 331-340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antoniades, A. (2003). Epistemic communities, epistemes and the construction of (world) politics. Global society 17 (1), 21-38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachelard , G. (1984 [1934]). The new scientific spirit. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, A. (2001). Political machines: governing a technological society. London: Athlone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, A. (2012). Political situations: Knowledge controversies in transnational governance. Critical Policy Studies 6 (3), 324-336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive Modernization. Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Stanford : Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1977 [1966]). Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Eine Theorie der Wissenssoziologie. Fran kfurt a. M.: Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevir, M. (2010). Democratic governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevir, M., & Krupicka, B. (2011). On two types of governance theory. A response to B. Guy Peters. Critical Policy Studies 5 (4), 450-453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogner, A. (2010). Partizipation als Laborexperiment. Paradoxien der Laiendeliberation in Technikfragen. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 39 (2) , 87-105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1987). Die feinen Unterschiede: Kritik der gesellschaftlichen Urteilskraft. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1993). Soziologische Fragen. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (2009 [1984]). Delegation und politischer Fetischismus. In H. Beister, E. Kessler, J. Ohnacker, R. Schmid & B. Schwibs (Hrsg.), Politik: Schriften zur Politischen Ökonomie 2 (S. 23-41). Konstanz: UVK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, B., Whatmore, S. J., & Stengers, I. (2010). Political matter: Technoscience, democracy, and public life. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, K., & Schultz, S. (2010). “… a certain amount of engineering involved”: Constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements. Public Understanding of Science 19 (4), 403-419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodocz, A. (2003). Das Ende der politischen Theorie? Über die Rechtfertigung der Demokratie und die Ironie ihrer Unmöglichkeit. In T. Bonack er, A. Brdocz & T. Noetzel (Hrsg.), Die Ironie der Politik. Über die Konstruktion politischer Wirklichkeiten (S. 52-64). Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. (2006). Survey Article: Citizen Panels and the Concept of Representation. Journal of Political Philosophy 14 (2), 203-225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. , Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: an essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In K. Knorr-Cetina & A. V. Cicourel (Hrsg.), Advances in social theory and methodology (S. 277-303). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chilvers, J. (2008). Environmental risk, uncertainty, and participation: mapping an emergent epistemic community. Environment and Planning A 40 (12), 2990-3008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chilvers, J. (2012). Expertise, technologies and ecologies of participation (3S Working Paper, Vol. 2012-17). Norwich: Science, Society and Sustainability Research Group, University of East Anglia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chilvers, J. (2013). Reflexive engagement? Actors, learning, and reflexivity in public dialogue on science and technology. Science Communication 35 (3), 283-310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A., & Star, S. L. (2008). The social worlds framework: A theory/methods package. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcm an (Hrsg.), The Handbook of Science & Technology Studies. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colebatch, H. K. (2009). Governance as a conceptual development in the analysis of policy. Critical Policy Studies 3 (1), 58-67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coote, A., & L enaghan, J. (1997). Citizens’ Jury. Theory into Practice. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, N. (1974). The educated random sample. A pilot study on a new way to get citizen input into the policy-making process. Minnesota: The Ce nter for New Democratic Processes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, N. (1975). In Search of the Competent Citizen. Minneapolis: Jefferson Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, N. (1995). Citizens juries: One solution for difficult environmental questions. In O. Renn, T. Webler, & P . Wiedemann (Hrsg.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation (S. 157-174). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, N., Kelly, J. M., & Schaefer, P. (1986). Citizens panels: A new approach to citizen participation. Public Administration Review 46 (2), 1 70-178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, N., & Nethercut, D. (2005). Citizens Juries: Creating a trustworthy voice of the people. In J. Gastil & P. Levine (Hrsg.), The deliberati ve democracy handbook. Strategies for effective civic engagement in the 21st century (S. 111-119). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R., & Lindblom, C. E. (1953). Politics, Economics and Welfare. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (2012 [1954]). The public and its problems: An essay in political inquiry. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dienel, P. (1970). Techniken bürgerschaftlicher Beteiligung an Planungsprozessen Partizipation. Aspekte politischer Kultur. Geistige und strukturelle Bedingungen. Modelle und Partizipationsformen (S. 144-156). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dienel, P. (1978). Die Planungszelle. Eine Alternative zur Establishment-Demokratie. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dienel, P. C. (1971). Wie könn en die Bürger an Planungsprozessen beteiligt werden? Planwahl und Planungszelle als Beteiligungsverfahren. Der Bürger im Staat 21 (3), 151-156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Disch, L. (2009). ‘Faitiche’-izing the People: What Representative Democracy Might Learn from Science Studies. APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1449734. Zugegriffen: 28.10.2015.

  • Disch, L. (2011). Toward a mobilization conception of democratic representation. American Political Science Review 105 (1) , 100-114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Djelic, M.-L., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2006). Transnational Governance, Institutional Dynamics of Regulation. Cambridge: University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, J. , Heesterbeek, S., Lukensmeyer, C. J., & Slocum, N. (2005). Participatory methods toolkit. A practitioner’s manual. Brussels: King Baudoin Foundation Flemish Institute for Science and Technology Assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, G. (2011). Illuminating the apparatus: steps toward a nonlocal ethnography of global governance. In C. Shore, S. Wright, & D. Peró (Hrsg.), Policy Worlds: Anthropology and the Analysis of Contemporary Power (S. 32-49). New York: Berghahn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felt, U., & Fochler, M. (2010). Machineries for Making Publics: Inscribing and De-scribing Publics in Public Engagement. Minerva 48 (3), 319-338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (1990). Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1991). Die Ordnung des Diskurses. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (2005). Analytik der Macht. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geissel, B., & Newton, K. (2011). Evaluating Democratic Innovations: Curing the Democratic Malaise? London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1986). The Constitution of Society. Berkeley, CA: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomart, E., & Hajer, M. A. (2003). Is that politics? For an inquiry into forms in contemporary politics. In B. Joerges & H. Nowotny (Hrsg.), Social Studies of Science and Technology: Looking Back, Ahead (S. 33-61). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R. E., & Dryzek, J. S. (2006). Deliberative impacts: the macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics & society 34 (2), 219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grönlund, K., Bächtiger, A., & Setälä, M. (Hrsg.). (2014). Deliberative Mini-Publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process. Colchester: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1968). Wissenschaft und Technik als Ideologie. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (2002). Historical ontology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinelt, H. (2008). Demokratie jenseits des Staates: partizipatives Regieren und Governance (Vol. 4). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, C. M. (2005). Participatory storylines and their influence on deliberative forums. Policy Sciences 38 (1), 1-20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, C. M. (2006). When the forum meets interest politics: Strategic uses of public deliberation. Politics & society 34 (4), 571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, C. M., & Carson, L. (2008). Can the market help the forum? Negotiating the commercialization of deliberative democracy. Policy Sciences 41 (4), 293-313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitzler, R. (2002). Inszenierung und Repräsentation. Bemerkungen zur Politikdarstellung in der Gegenwart. In H.-G. Soeffner & D. Tänzler (Hrsg.), Figurative Politik. Zur Performanz der Macht in der modernen Gesellschaft (S. 35-49). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hörnin g, G. (1999). Citizens’ panels as a form of deliberative technology assessment. Science and public policy 26 (5), 351-359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutter, M., Knoblauch, H., Rammert, W., & Windeler, A. (2011). Innovationsgesellschaft heute. Die reflexive Herstellung des Neuen (TUTS-Working Papers, 4-2011). Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A . (2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10 (1), 1-18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A . (2008). STS perspectives on scientific governance. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Hrsg.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Third Edition (S. 583-608). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff , S. (Hrsg.). (2004). States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joas, H. (1980). Praktische Intersubjektivität: Die Entwicklung des Werkes von George Herbert Mead. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joss, S., & Durant, J. (1995). Public participation in science: the role of consensus conferences in Europe. Peterborough: Science Museum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klages, H . (1968). Soziologie zwischen Wirklichkeit und Möglichkeit. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoblauch, H. (2013). Communicative Action, Reflexivity, and Innovation Society (TUTSWP 3-2014). Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1995). Laboratory studies: The cultural approach to the study of science. In S. Jasanoff & E. al. (Hrsg.), Handbook of science and technology studies (S. 140-166). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1983). Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In K. Knorr-Cetina & M. Mulkay (Hrsg.), Science observed. Perspectives on the social studies of science(S. 142-169). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope. Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2003). What if we talked politics a little? Contemporary Political Theory 2 (2), 143-164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical inquiry 30 (2), 225-248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurent, B. (2011a). Democracies on trial. Assembling nanotechnology and its problems. PhD Thesis. Paris: Mines Paris Tech, Centre de Sociologie de l’Innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurent, B. (2011b). Technologies of democracy: Experiments and demonstrations. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4), 649-666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (20 12). Collateral realities. In F. D. Rubio & P. Baert (Hrsg.), The Politics of Knowledge (S. 156-178). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, J., Ruppert, E., & Savage, M. (2011). The Double Social Life of Method (CRESC Working Paper Series). Milton Keynes: Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change, Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, D., & Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy sciences: Recent developments in scope and method. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lezaun, J., & Soneryd, L. (2007). Consulting citizens: technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science 16 (3), 279-297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, T. M. ( 2007). The will to improve. Governmentrality. Development and the Practice of Politics. Chapel Hill: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowi, T. (1 963). Toward functionalism in political science: the case of innovation in party systems. American Political Science Review 57 (03), 570-583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1975). Interaktion, Organisation, Gesellschaft. Anwendungen der Systemtheorie. In N. Luhmann (Hrsg.), Soziologische Aufklärung 2. Aufsätze zur Theorie der Gesellschaft. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M. (20 00). Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge. Theory, Culture & Society 17 (3), 26-54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, C., & Simons, A. (2014). Local emergence and international developments of conservation trading systems: innovation dynamics and related problems. Journal of Environmental Conservation, themed issue “Tradable Rights in Conservation”. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892914000381

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, C., Voß , J.-P., Amelung, N., Simons, A., Runge, T., & Grabner, L. (2014). Challenging futures of citizen panels. Critical issues for robust forms of public participation. A report based on interactive, anticipatory assessment of the dynamics of governance instruments, 26. April 2013. Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcuse, H. (19 67). Der eindimensionale Mensch. Studien zur Ideologie der fortgeschrittenen Industriegesellschaft. Neuwied: Luchterhand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mol, A. (1998). Ontological politics. A word and some questions. The Sociological Review 46 (S), 74-89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nahuis, R., & van Lente, H. (2008). Where are the politics? Perspectives on democracy and technology. Science, technology & human values 33 (5), 559.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2001). Citizens as partners. OECD handbook on information, consultation and public participation in policy-making. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Offe, C. (2008) . Governance – „Empty signifier“ oder sozialwissenschaftliches Forschungsprogramm? In G. F. Schuppert & M. Zürn (Hrsg.), Governance in einer sich wandelnden Welt (S. 61-76). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pallett, H., & C hilvers, J. (2013). A decade of learning about publics, participation, and climate change: institutionalising reflexivity? Environment and Planning A 45 (5), 1162-1183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulos, Y. (2004). Governance und Demokratie. In A. Benz & N. Dose (Hrsg.), Governance – Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen (S. 215-237). Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson, J. (2 004). Why Deliberate? The Encounter Between Deliberation and New Public Managers. Public Administration 82 (2), 377-395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson, J. (2 006). Deliberating in the real world: problems of legitimacy in deliberative democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G. (2 011a). Governance as political theory. Critical Policy Studies 5 (1), 63-72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G. (2 011b). Response to Mark Bevir and Benjamin Krupicka, Hubert Heinelt and Birgit Sauer. Critical Policy Studies 5 (4), 467-470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfister, T. (2016). Co-producing European Integration: research, policy, and welfare activation. In J.-P. Voß & R. Freeman (Hrsg.), Knowing governance. The epistemic construction of political order (S. 63-86). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rammert, W. (1997) . Innovation im Netz. Neue Zeiten für technische Innovationen: heterogen verteilt und interaktiv. Soziale Welt 4 396-415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rammert, W. (2010). Die Innovationen der Gesellschaft. In J. Howaldt & H. Jacobsen (Hrsg.), Soziale Innovation (S. 21-51). Wiesbaden: Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Rask, M. (2012). Prospects of Deliberative Global Governance. Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering 1 (1), 556-565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reckwitz, A. (2003). Die Krise der Repräsentation und das reflexive Kontingenzbewusstsein. Zu den Konsequenzen der post-empiristischen Wissenschaftstheorien für die Identität der Sozialwissenschaften. In T. Bonacker, A. Bordocz, & T. Noetzel (Hrsg.),Die ronie der Politik. Über dieI (S. 85-103), Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rheinberger, H.-J. (200 7). Historische Epistemologie. Hamburg: Junius.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (1987). Controversies as Informal Technology Assessment. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 8, 349-371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (2006). A Co-Evolutionary Approach to Reflexive Governance and Its Ironies. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Hrsg.), Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development (S. 82-100). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosanvallon, P. (2002). Le peuple introuvable: histoire de la représentation démocratique en France. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, technology & human values 25 (1), 3-29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saretzki, T. (1994). Technokratie, Technokratiekritik und das Verschwinden der Gesellschaft. Zur Diskussion um das andere politische Projekt der Moderne. In M. T. Greven (Hrsg.), Politikwissenschaft als Kritische Theorie. Festschrift für Kurt Lenk (S. 353-386). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saretzki, T. (2001). Entstehung, Verlauf und Wirkung von Technisierungskonfl ikten: Die Rolle von Bürgerinitiativen, sozialen Bewegungen und politischen Parteien. In G. Simonis, R. Martinsen, & T. Saretzki (Hrsg.), PVS Politik und Technik. Analysen zum Verhältnis von Technologischem, politischem und staatlichen Wandel am Anfang des 21. Jahrhunderts. Sonderheft 31/2000 (S. 185-212). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saretzki, T. (2008). Policy-A nalyse, Demokratie und Deliberation: Theorieentwicklung und Forschungsperspektiven der „Policy Sciences of Democracy “. In F. Janning & K. Toens (Hrsg.), Die Zukunft der Policy Forschung. Theorien, Methoden, Anwendungen (S. 54). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saward, M. (2006). The representative claim. Contemporary Political Theory 5 (3), 297-318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, C. (2014). Social I nnovations. Highly reflexive and multi-referential phenomena of today’s innovation society? (TUTS-Working Papers, 2-2014). Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütz, A. (1945). On multiple realities. Philosophy and phenomenological research 5 (4), 533-576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selgas, F. J. G. (2011). Social fluidity: the politics of a theoretical model. In F. D. Rubio & P. Baert (Hrsg.), The Politics of Knowledge (S. 135-155). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senghaas, D. (1965). Politische Innovation. Versuch über den Panafrikanismus. Zeitschrift für Politik 12, 333-355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S. (1984). Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle’s literary technology. Social Studies of Science 14 (4), 481-520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the Air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental life. New Jersey: Princeton University Press Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shore, C., & Wright, S. (1997). Anthropology of Policy. Critical perspectives on governance and power. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, A., & Voß, J.-P. (2014). Politics by other means. The making of the emissions trading instrument as a ‘pre-history’ of carbon trading. In B. Stephan & R. Lane (Hrsg.), The Politics of Carbon Markets (S. 51-68). London: Earthscan/Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations. Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G., & Wales, C. (2002). Citizens’ Juries and Deliberative Democracy. Political Studies 48 (1), 51-65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soeffner, H.-G., & Tänzler, D. (20 02). Figurative Politik. Prolegomena zu einer Kultursoziologie politischen Handelns. In H.-G. Soeffner & D. Tänzler (Hrsg.), Figurative Politik. Zur Performanz der Macht in der modernen Gesellschaft (S. 17-33). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J., Kendall, E., & Coote, A . (1994). Citizens’ Juries. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strathern, M. (2005 [1991]). Partial connections. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sulkin, T., & Simon, A. F. (2001). Habermas in the lab: A study of deliberation in an experimental setting. Political Psychology 22 (4), 809-826.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, V. A. (1965). Bureaucracy and innovation. Administrative science quarterly 5 (6), 1-20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D., Garud , R., & Venkatamaran, S. (1999). The Innovation Journey. Oxford: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vergne, A. (2009). Die Diffusion der Planungszelle: Eine Langzeitperspektive. Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J.-P. (2007a). Designs on governance. Development of policy instruments and dynamics in governance. PhD thesis. Enschede: University of Twente.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J.-P. (2007b). Innovation processes in governance: the development of ‘emissions trading’ as a new policy instrument. Science and public policy 34 (5), 329-343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J.-P. (2014). Performative policy studies: realizing ‘transition management’. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 27 (4), 317-343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J.-P. (2016a). Reflexively engaging with technologies of participation. Constructive assessment for public participation methods. In J. Chilvers & M. B. Kearnes (Hrsg.), Remaking participation: science, environment and emergent publics (S. 238-260). London: Routledge-Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J.-P. (2016b). Realizing instruments: performativity in emissions trading and citizen panels. In J.-P. Voß & R. Freeman (Hrsg.), Knowing governance. The epistemic construction of political order (S. 127-154). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J.-P., & Amelung, N. (im Erscheinen). The innovation journey of ‚citizen panels‘: technoscientization and reflexive engagement in developing methods of public participation. Social Studies of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J.-P., & Bauknecht, D. (2007). Der Einfluss von Technik auf Governance-Innovationen: Regulierung zur gemeinsamen Netznutzung in Infrastruktursystemen. In U. Dolata & R. Werle (Hrsg.), Gesellschaft und die Macht der Technik. Sozioökonomischer und institutioneller Wandel durch Technisierung (S. 109-131). Frankfurt, New York: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J.-P., & Simons, A. (2014). Instrument constituencies and the supply-side of policy innovation: the social life of emissions trading. Environmental Politics 23 (5), 735-754.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J.-P., Smith, A., & Grin, J. (2009). De signing long-term policy: rethinking transition management. Policy Sciences 42 (4), 275-302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakeford, T. (2003). Teach yourself citizen juries. A handbook. Resource document. http://www.speaksoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Citizens-Juries-Book.pdf. Zugegriffen: 21.09.2015.

  • Wakeford, T., & Singh, J. (2008). Towards empowered participation: stories and reflections. Participatory Learning and Action 58 (June), 6-10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakeford, T., Singh, J., Murtuja, B., Bryant, P., & Pimbert, M. (2007). The jury is out: How far can participatory projects go towards reclaiming democracy? In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Hrsg.), The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (S. 333-349). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J. (1969). The diffusion of Innovation Among the American States. American Political Science Review 63, 880-899.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1920). Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie, Bd. I . Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Internetquellen

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan-Peter Voß .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Voß, JP. (2016). Governance-Innovationen. In: Rammert, W., Windeler, A., Knoblauch, H., Hutter, M. (eds) Innovationsgesellschaft heute. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10874-8_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10874-8_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-10873-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-10874-8

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)