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