IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v33y2006i10p713-728.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Upping the ante: A conceptual framework for designing and evaluating participatory technology assessments

Author

Listed:
  • Jacquelin Burgess
  • Jason Chilvers

Abstract

Radical uncertainty, political controversy and public distrust in emerging areas of science and technology is fuelling moves towards new forms of governance centred on ex ante or ‘upstream’ public and stakeholder engagement with policy. Yet how is such deliberation and inclusion to be achieved in contentious national policy processes? We present a contextual framework that seeks to understand this question better and use it to reflect on two high-profile UK examples of ‘new governance’ in genetic modification and radioactive waste management. In doing this, we argue for: better definition of who/what is represented in such processes; mixed methodologies both to integrate analytic-deliberative dimensions and address questions of representativeness; and more systematic evaluation of the outputs and outcomes of appraisal processes. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacquelin Burgess & Jason Chilvers, 2006. "Upping the ante: A conceptual framework for designing and evaluating participatory technology assessments," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(10), pages 713-728, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:33:y:2006:i:10:p:713-728
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154306781778551
    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. Douglas, Conor M.W. & Wilcox, Elizabeth & Burgess, Michael & Lynd, Larry D., 2015. "Why orphan drug coverage reimbursement decision-making needs patient and public involvement," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(5), pages 588-596.
    2. Jonathan Metzger & Linda Soneryd & Sebastian Linke, 2017. "The legitimization of concern: A flexible framework for investigating the enactment of stakeholders in environmental planning and governance processes," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(11), pages 2517-2535, November.
    3. Jason Chilvers, 2008. "Environmental Risk, Uncertainty, and Participation: Mapping an Emergent Epistemic Community," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 40(12), pages 2990-3008, December.
    4. Cronin, Karen & Midgley, Gerald & Jackson, Laurie Skuba, 2014. "Issues Mapping: A problem structuring method for addressing science and technology conflicts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(1), pages 145-158.
    5. Hermans, Frans & van Apeldoorn, Dirk & Stuiver, Marian & Kok, Kasper, 2013. "Niches and networks: Explaining network evolution through niche formation processes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 613-623.
    6. Yenneti, Komali & Day, Rosie, 2015. "Procedural (in)justice in the implementation of solar energy: The case of Charanaka solar park, Gujarat, India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 664-673.
    7. Jason Chilvers & Jacquelin Burgess, 2008. "Power Relations: The Politics of Risk and Procedure in Nuclear Waste Governance," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 40(8), pages 1881-1900, August.
    8. Livia Fritz & Claudia R. Binder, 2018. "Participation as Relational Space: A Critical Approach to Analysing Participation in Sustainability Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-29, August.
    9. Tavella, Elena, 2016. "How to make Participatory Technology Assessment in agriculture more “participatory”: The case of genetically modified plants," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 119-126.
    10. Marina Knickel & Karlheinz Knickel & Francesca Galli & Damian Maye & Johannes S. C. Wiskerke, 2019. "Towards a Reflexive Framework for Fostering Co—Learning and Improvement of Transdisciplinary Collaboration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.
    11. Anna Straton & Sue Jackson & Oswald Marinoni & Wendy Proctor & Emma Woodward, 2011. "Exploring and Evaluating Scenarios for a River Catchment in Northern Australia Using Scenario Development, Multi-criteria Analysis and a Deliberative Process as a Tool for Water Planning," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(1), pages 141-164, January.

    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:33:y:2006:i:10:p:713-728. 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.