IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v40y2013i4p466-478.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

'Don't make nanotechnology sexy, ensure its benefits, and be neutral': Studying the logics of new intermediary institutions in ambiguous governance contexts

Author

Listed:
  • Heidrun Åm

Abstract

This paper suggests a new theoretical approach to studying intermediary institutions, particularly intermediary institutions at the science--policy nexus. Intermediary institutions that mediate between science and politics have often been approached from the perspective of 'boundary organizations'. But this model, incorporating assumptions of principal--agent theory, is not suitable for capturing case studies (of intermediary institutions) in ambiguous governance contexts. Indeed, there is a lack of systemic studies of the material implications that the rise of new governance actors has, for example for governing emerging technologies. Therefore, we need a new theoretical vocabulary to grasp how intermediary institutions emerge and how they work in practice. This paper addresses this gap by analysing the shortcomings of a nanotechnology observatory project. Drawing on both actor network theory and political discourse theory, the paper outlines a three-fold framework based on the concept of logics that shifts the focus of research toward an analysis of context-based case studies of intermediaries. Copyright The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Heidrun Åm, 2013. "'Don't make nanotechnology sexy, ensure its benefits, and be neutral': Studying the logics of new intermediary institutions in ambiguous governance contexts," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(4), pages 466-478, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:40:y:2013:i:4:p:466-478
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/sct054
    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.

    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:40:y:2013:i:4:p:466-478. 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.