Legitimation problems of participatory processes in technology assessment and technology policy

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Standard

Legitimation problems of participatory processes in technology assessment and technology policy. / Saretzki, Thomas.
in: Poiesis & Praxis. International Journal of Ethics and Technology Assessment, Jahrgang 9, Nr. 1-2, 16.11.2012, S. 7-26.

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{9f7d787a6b9c4abfa16f3d22c10f606c,
title = "Legitimation problems of participatory processes in technology assessment and technology policy",
abstract = "Since James Carroll (1971) made a strong case for {\textquoteleft}{\textquoteleft}participatorytechnology{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright}, scientists, engineers, policy-makers and the public at large have seenquite a number of different approaches to design and implement participatoryprocesses in technology assessment and technology policy. As these participatoryexperiments and practices spread over the last two decades, one could easily get theimpression that participation turned from a theoretical normative claim to a workingpractice that goes without saying. Looking beyond the well-known forerunners andconsidering the ambivalent experiences that have been made under different conditionsin various places, however, the {\textquoteleft}{\textquoteleft}if{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}{\textquoteleft}how{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} of participation are stillcontested issues when questions of technology are on the agenda. Legitimationproblems indicate that attempts to justify participation in a given case have not beenentirely successful in the eyes of relevant groups among the sponsors, participants,organizers or observers. Legitimation problems of participatory processes in technologyassessment and technology policy vary considerably, and they do so not onlywith the two domains and the ways of their interrelation or the specific features ofthe participatory processes. If we ask whether or not participation is seen asproblematic in technology assessment and technology policy-making and in whatsense it is being evaluated as problematic, then we find that the answer depends alsoon the approaches and criteria that have been used to legitimize or delegitimize thecall for a specific design of participation.",
keywords = "Politics, Technikfolgenabsch{\"a}tzung",
author = "Thomas Saretzki",
year = "2012",
month = nov,
day = "16",
doi = "10.1007/s10202-012-0123-4",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "7--26",
journal = "Poiesis & Praxis. International Journal of Ethics and Technology Assessment",
issn = "1615-6609",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "1-2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Legitimation problems of participatory processes in technology assessment and technology policy

AU - Saretzki, Thomas

PY - 2012/11/16

Y1 - 2012/11/16

N2 - Since James Carroll (1971) made a strong case for ‘‘participatorytechnology’’, scientists, engineers, policy-makers and the public at large have seenquite a number of different approaches to design and implement participatoryprocesses in technology assessment and technology policy. As these participatoryexperiments and practices spread over the last two decades, one could easily get theimpression that participation turned from a theoretical normative claim to a workingpractice that goes without saying. Looking beyond the well-known forerunners andconsidering the ambivalent experiences that have been made under different conditionsin various places, however, the ‘‘if’’ and ‘‘how’’ of participation are stillcontested issues when questions of technology are on the agenda. Legitimationproblems indicate that attempts to justify participation in a given case have not beenentirely successful in the eyes of relevant groups among the sponsors, participants,organizers or observers. Legitimation problems of participatory processes in technologyassessment and technology policy vary considerably, and they do so not onlywith the two domains and the ways of their interrelation or the specific features ofthe participatory processes. If we ask whether or not participation is seen asproblematic in technology assessment and technology policy-making and in whatsense it is being evaluated as problematic, then we find that the answer depends alsoon the approaches and criteria that have been used to legitimize or delegitimize thecall for a specific design of participation.

AB - Since James Carroll (1971) made a strong case for ‘‘participatorytechnology’’, scientists, engineers, policy-makers and the public at large have seenquite a number of different approaches to design and implement participatoryprocesses in technology assessment and technology policy. As these participatoryexperiments and practices spread over the last two decades, one could easily get theimpression that participation turned from a theoretical normative claim to a workingpractice that goes without saying. Looking beyond the well-known forerunners andconsidering the ambivalent experiences that have been made under different conditionsin various places, however, the ‘‘if’’ and ‘‘how’’ of participation are stillcontested issues when questions of technology are on the agenda. Legitimationproblems indicate that attempts to justify participation in a given case have not beenentirely successful in the eyes of relevant groups among the sponsors, participants,organizers or observers. Legitimation problems of participatory processes in technologyassessment and technology policy vary considerably, and they do so not onlywith the two domains and the ways of their interrelation or the specific features ofthe participatory processes. If we ask whether or not participation is seen asproblematic in technology assessment and technology policy-making and in whatsense it is being evaluated as problematic, then we find that the answer depends alsoon the approaches and criteria that have been used to legitimize or delegitimize thecall for a specific design of participation.

KW - Politics

KW - Technikfolgenabschätzung

UR - https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84870710701&origin=inward&txGid=0

U2 - 10.1007/s10202-012-0123-4

DO - 10.1007/s10202-012-0123-4

M3 - Journal articles

C2 - 23204993

VL - 9

SP - 7

EP - 26

JO - Poiesis & Praxis. International Journal of Ethics and Technology Assessment

JF - Poiesis & Praxis. International Journal of Ethics and Technology Assessment

SN - 1615-6609

IS - 1-2

ER -

DOI

Zuletzt angesehen

Publikationen

  1. Representative time use data and new harmonised calibration of the American Heritage Time Use Data (AHTUD) 1965-1999
  2. Going beyond certificates
  3. Plant traits alone are poor predictors of ecosystem properties and long-term ecosystem functioning
  4. Dealing with availability and response expectations: Are older employees at an advantage and why?
  5. CD Reloaded
  6. Peter's positions: a diffractive analysis of authority in a year one classroom
  7. Introduction
  8. Creativity in the ‘spaces of hope’
  9. The Augmented Theorist - Toward Automated Knowledge Extraction from Conceptual Models
  10. The role of plant biodiversity in modifying the structure and functioning of higher tropic Levels in species-rich forests
  11. On the Relation of Boredom and Sadistic Aggression
  12. CAN BUSINESS MODEL COMPONENTS EXPLAIN DIGITAL START-UP SUCCESS?
  13. Vom Sagbaren zum Machbaren?
  14. Learning to collaborate while collaborating
  15. Analog, Digital, and the Cybernetic Illusion
  16. Can not wanting to know be responsible?
  17. Relational Transdisciplinarity: Five Reflexive Steps for Embodying Relational Ontologies in Transdisciplinary Learning Contexts
  18. DESI
  19. Tree diversity promotes functional dissimilarity and maintains functional richness despite species loss in predator assemblages
  20. Interfaces Ludiques
  21. John Locke
  22. Local lens for SDG implementation: lessons from bottom-up approaches in Africa
  23. Comparative study on corrosion behavior of we33 in immersion and polarization influenced by heat treatment
  24. A Systematic Literature Review Of Machine Learning Approaches For The Prediction Of Delivery Dates
  25. Circular and inclusive utilization of alternative proteins
  26. Inflation Narratives from a Machine Learning Perspective