Abstract
Over the last five years a new body of literature has attempted to shift away from assessing the impacts of technologies to highlight the multi-actor informed possibilities and constraints for socially shaping systemic technological transitions (TT), involving multiple issues at multiple levels (see for example Geels, 2004; Elzen et al., 2004). Although we are sympathetic to TT approaches and their illumination of the possibilities for broadening participation in managing technological transitions, such approaches say relatively little about the wider role of ‘publics’ in transitions, the places in which transitions take place and the role of different social interests in shaping the production of societal visions and technological expectations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
S. Arnstein, ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’, Journal American Institute of Planners, 35 (1969) 215–224.
U. Beck, A. Giddens and S. Lash, Reflexive Modernisation (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994).
F. Berkhout, A. Smith and A. Stirling, Socio-Technological Regimes and Transition Contexts, Working Paper Series (SPRU: University of Sussex, 2003).
M. Borup, N. Brown, K. Konrad and H. Van Lente, ‘The Sociology of Expectations in Science and Technology’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18:3/4 (2006) 285–298.
BP, ‘BP Corporate brochure on hydrogen energy’ (2004).
B. Elzen, F. Geels and K. Green (eds), System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004).
European Commission, Clean Urban Transport for Europe General Introduction Brochure (Brussels: European Commission, undated).
F. Geels, ‘Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case study’, Research Policy, 31 (2002) 1257–1274.
F. Geels, ‘From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory’, Research Policy, 33 (2004) 897–920.
A. Genus, ‘Rethinking Constructive Technology Assessment as Democratic, Reflective, Discourse’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73:1 (2006) 13–26.
A. Genus and A. Coles, ‘On Constructive Technology Assessment and Limitations on Public Participation in Technology Assessment’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 17:4 (2005) 433–443.
E. Goffman, Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience (New York: Harper and Row, 1974).
R. Grantham, The Planning Inspectorate, Report to the First Secretary of State — London Borough of Havering Appeal by BP Oil UK Limited (The Planning Inspectorate: Bristol, 2004 June).
D. MacKenzie and J. Wajcman (eds), The Social Shaping of Technology (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1999).
J. Mumford, ‘Improving Risk Communication: strategies for public acceptance of new technology involving high impact low frequency risk’, Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Surrey, Guildford, 2006.
J. Rotmans, R. Kemp and M. van Asselt, ‘More Evolution than Revolution’, Foresight, 3:1 (2001) 1–17.
G. Rowe and L. Frewer, ‘Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda’, Science Technology Human Values, 29:4 (2004) 512–556.
G. Rowe and L. Frewer, ‘A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms’, Science, Technology and Human Values, 30:2 (2005) 251–290.
S. Russell and R. Williams, ‘Social Shaping of Technology: Frameworks, Findings and Implications for Policy …’ in Sorensen, K. and Williams, R. (eds), Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy, pp. 37–132 (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2002).
J. Schot and A. Rip, ‘The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment’, Technological Change and Social Forecasting, 54 (1997) 251–268.
J. Schot, ‘Towards New Forms of Participatory Technology Development’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 13:1 (2001) 39–52.
A. Stirling, ‘Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology’, in Leach, M., Scoones, I. and Wynne, B. (eds), Science and Citizens, pp. 218–236 (London: Zed Books, 2005).
R. Williams and D. Edge, ‘The social shaping of technology’, in Preece, D., McLoughlin, I. and Dawson, P. (eds), Technology, Organisations and Innovation: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management, pp. 545–599 (London: Routledge, 2000 [1996]).
J. Wilsdon and R. Willis, See-through Science (London: Demos, 2004).
B. Wynne, ‘Knowledges in context’, Science, Technology and Human Values, 16:1 (1991) 111–121.
B. Wynne, ‘Risk as globalizing “democratic” discourse? Framing subjects and citizens’, in Leach, M., Scoones, I. and Wynne, B. (eds), Science and Citizens, pp. 66–82 (London: Zed Books, 2005).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2007 Mike Hodson, Simon Marvin and Victoria Simpson
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hodson, M., Marvin, S., Simpson, V. (2007). Technological Transitions and Public Engagement: Competing Visions of a Hydrogen Fuel Station. In: Flynn, R., Bellaby, P. (eds) Risk and the Public Acceptance of New Technologies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230591288_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230591288_10
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-35486-3
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-59128-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)