IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v26y1999i5p294-302.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technological deliberation in a democratic society: The case for participatory inquiry

Author

Listed:
  • Frank Fischer

Abstract

Far too little systematic attention has been devoted to the ability of citizens to participate meaningfully in an age dominated by complex technologies and expert decisions. Citizen protests against technological threats have led to practices of participatory inquiry that allow people to voice opinions on issues that directly affect their lives. The implied extra time and cost of the inquiry process has been worth while in many instances. More active steps should be taken to integrate the approach formally into technological policy and decision-making. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank Fischer, 1999. "Technological deliberation in a democratic society: The case for participatory inquiry," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 294-302, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:26:y:1999:i:5:p:294-302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154399781782293
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Linda K Westman & Vanesa Castán Broto, 2019. "Techno-economic rationalities as a political practice in urban environmental politics in China," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 37(2), pages 277-297, March.
    2. Real, Alejandra & Hickey, Gordon M., 2013. "Publicly funded research: A participative experience from the Chilean Native Forest Research Fund," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 37-43.
    3. A. Russell & Frank Vanclay & Janet Salisbury & Heather Aslin, 2011. "Technology assessment in Australia: the case for a formal agency to improve advice to policy makers," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(2), pages 157-177, June.
    4. Goodfellow, Martin J. & Williams, Hugo R. & Azapagic, Adisa, 2011. "Nuclear renaissance, public perception and design criteria: An exploratory review," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 6199-6210, October.
    5. Yang, Lihua & Wu, Jianguo, 2009. "Scholar-participated governance as an alternative solution to the problem of collective action in social-ecological systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2412-2425, June.
    6. Emanuel Towfigh & Andreas Glöckner & Sebastian Goerg & Philip Leifeld & Carlos Kurschilgen & Aniol Llorente-Saguer & Sophie Bade, 2013. "Does Political Representation through Parties Decrease Voters' Acceptance of Decisions?," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2013_10, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:26:y:1999:i:5:p:294-302. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.