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 und Praxis",
issn = "1615-6609",
publisher = "Springer",
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 und Praxis

JF - Poiesis und Praxis

SN - 1615-6609

IS - 1-2

ER -

DOI