IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v171y2021ics0040162521004066.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Designing Participatory Technology Assessments: A Reflexive Method for Advancing the Public Role in Science Policy Decision-making

Author

Listed:
  • Kaplan, Leah R.
  • Farooque, Mahmud
  • Sarewitz, Daniel
  • Tomblin, David

Abstract

Decades of social science scholarship have documented and explored the interconnected nature of science, technology, and society. Multiple theoretical frameworks suggest the potential to direct this process of mutual shaping toward desired outcomes and away from undesired ones through broader inclusion of new voices and visions. In 2010, a group of researchers, educators, and policy practitioners established the Expert and Citizen Assessment of Science and Technology (ECAST) network to operationalize these frameworks. Over the course of a decade, ECAST developed an innovative and reflexive participatory technology assessment (pTA) method to support democratic science policy decision-making in different technical, social, and political contexts. The method's reflexive nature gave rise to continuous innovations and iterative improvements. The current ECAST pTA method includes three participatory phases: 1) Problem Framing; 2) ECAST Citizen Deliberation; and 3) Results and Integration. Proving adaptable and replicable, the method has generated outputs for decision-making on a variety of science and technology issues and at governance scales ranging from the local to the national and international. ECAST's distributed network model has also promoted independence, continuity, and sustainability through changing sociopolitical contexts. In this paper, we detail the current state of the ECAST pTA method; share mini case studies to illustrate circumstances that prompted new method innovations; and offer a vision for further developing and integrating pTA into democratic science policy decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaplan, Leah R. & Farooque, Mahmud & Sarewitz, Daniel & Tomblin, David, 2021. "Designing Participatory Technology Assessments: A Reflexive Method for Advancing the Public Role in Science Policy Decision-making," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:171:y:2021:i:c:s0040162521004066
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120974
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162521004066
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120974?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Williams, Logan D. A. & Woodson, Thomas, 2019. "Enhancing Socio-technical Governance: Targeting Inequality in Innovation through Inclusivity Mainstreaming," SocArXiv pj9ck, Center for Open Science.
    2. Erik Fisher & Roop L Mahajan, 2006. "Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 5-16, February.
    3. Ruud Smits & Rutger van Merkerk & David H. Guston & Daniel Sarewitz, 2010. "The Role of Technology Assessment in Systemic Innovation Policy," Chapters, in: Ruud E. Smits & Stefan Kuhlmann & Phillip Shapira (ed.), The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy, chapter 16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Fisher, Erik, 2019. "Governing with ambivalence: The tentative origins of socio-technical integration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1138-1149.
    5. Ruud E. Smits & Stefan Kuhlmann & Phillip Shapira (ed.), 2010. "The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4181.
    6. Ronlyn Duncan & Melissa Robson-Williams & Sarah Edwards, 2020. "A close examination of the role and needed expertise of brokers in bridging and building science policy boundaries in environmental decision making," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-12, December.
    7. Louis-Gaëtan Giraudet & Bénédicte Apouey & Hazem Arab & Simon Baeckelandt & Philippe Begout & Nicolas Berghmans & Nathalie Blanc & Jean-Yves Boulin & Eric Buge & Dimitri Courant & Amy Dahan & Adrien F, 2022. "“Co-construction” in Deliberative Democracy: Lessons from the French Citizens’ Convention for Climate," Working Papers hal-03119539, HAL.
    8. Stilgoe, Jack & Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil, 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1568-1580.
    9. Michael Gibbons, 1999. "Science's new social contract with society," Nature, Nature, vol. 402(6761), pages 81-84, December.
    10. Fisher, Erik, 2005. "Lessons learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications program (ELSI): Planning societal implications research for the National Nanotechnology Program," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 321-328.
    11. Jason Delborne & Jen Schneider & Ravtosh Bal & Susan Cozzens & Richard Worthington, 2013. "Policy pathways, policy networks, and citizen deliberation: Disseminating the results of World Wide Views on Global Warming in the USA," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(3), pages 378-392, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kraus, Sascha & Kumar, Satish & Lim, Weng Marc & Kaur, Jaspreet & Sharma, Anuj & Schiavone, Francesco, 2023. "From moon landing to metaverse: Tracing the evolution of Technological Forecasting and Social Change," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    2. Christopher Torres & Luke Fowler, 2023. "Creatively interpreting policy to move science forward: Implementing participatory technology assessment at NASA," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(3), pages 389-405, May.
    3. Radtke, Jörg & Scherhaufer, Patrick, 2022. "A social science perspective on conflicts in the energy transition: An introduction to the special issue," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    4. Reichelt, Nicole & Nettle, Ruth, 2023. "Practice insights for the responsible adoption of smart farming technologies using a participatory technology assessment approach: The case of virtual herding technology in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    5. Terre Satterfield & Sara Nawaz & Guillaume Peterson St-Laurent, 2023. "Exploring public acceptability of direct air carbon capture with storage: climate urgency, moral hazards and perceptions of the ‘whole versus the parts’," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(2), pages 1-21, February.
    6. Gregor Wolbring, 2022. "Auditing the ‘Social’ of Quantum Technologies: A Scoping Review," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-38, March.
    7. Hao Dong & Yang Zhang & Tianqing Chen, 2023. "A Study on Farmers’ Participation in Environmental Protection in the Context of Rural Revitalization: The Moderating Role of Policy Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-13, January.
    8. Metta, Matteo & Ciliberti, Stefano & Obi, Chinedu & Bartolini, Fabio & Klerkx, Laurens & Brunori, Gianluca, 2022. "An integrated socio-cyber-physical system framework to assess responsible digitalisation in agriculture: A first application with Living Labs in Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yuwan Malakar & Justine Lacey & Paul M Bertsch, 2022. "Towards responsible science and technology: How nanotechnology research and development is shaping risk governance practices in Australia," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Fisher, Erik, 2019. "Governing with ambivalence: The tentative origins of socio-technical integration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1138-1149.
    3. Jakob Edler & Jan Fagerberg, 2017. "Innovation policy: what, why, and how," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(1), pages 2-23.
    4. Kuhlmann, Stefan & Stegmaier, Peter & Konrad, Kornelia, 2019. "The tentative governance of emerging science and technology—A conceptual introduction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1091-1097.
    5. Roelofsen, Anneloes & Boon, Wouter P.C. & Kloet, Roy R. & Broerse, Jacqueline E.W., 2011. "Stakeholder interaction within research consortia on emerging technologies: Learning how and what?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 341-354, April.
    6. van Oudheusden, Michiel & Charlier, Nathan & Rosskamp, Benedikt & Delvenne, Pierre, 2015. "Broadening, deepening, and governing innovation: Flemish technology assessment in historical and socio-political perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1877-1886.
    7. Rodríguez, Hannot & Fisher, Erik & Schuurbiers, Daan, 2013. "Integrating science and society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in project-level solicitations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1126-1137.
    8. Kenny, Ursula & Regan, Áine & Hearne, Dave & O'Meara, Christine, 2021. "Empathising, defining and ideating with the farming community to develop a geotagged photo app for smart devices: A design thinking approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    9. Andersen, Per Dannemand & Clausen, Niels-Erik & Cronin, Tom & Piirainen, Kalle A., 2018. "The North Sea Offshore Wind Service Industry: Status, perspectives and a joint action plan," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P2), pages 2672-2683.
    10. Erik Fisher & Catherine P. Slade & Derrick Anderson & Barry Bozeman, 2010. "The public value of nanotechnology?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 29-39, October.
    11. Schot, Johan & Steinmueller, W. Edward, 2018. "Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1554-1567.
    12. Jakku, E. & Fleming, A. & Espig, M. & Fielke, S. & Finlay-Smits, S.C. & Turner, J.A., 2023. "Disruption disrupted? Reflecting on the relationship between responsible innovation and digital agriculture research and development at multiple levels in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    13. Borrás, Susana & Edler, Jakob, 2020. "The roles of the state in the governance of socio-technical systems’ transformation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    14. Vas, Zsófia & Nádas, Nikoletta, 2021. "A felelősségteljes innováció tíz éve az Európai Unió szakpolitikájában [Ten years of fully responsible innovation in the specialist policy of the European Union]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1210-1230.
    15. Oliver Falck & Anita Dietrich & Tobias Lohse & Friederike Welter & Heike Belitz & Cedric von der Hellen & Carsten Dreher & Carsten Schwäbe & Dietmar Harhoff & Monika Schnitzer & Uschi Backes-Gellner &, 2019. "Steuerliche Forschungsförderung: Wichtiger Impuls für FuE-Aktivitäten oder zu wenig zielgerichtet?," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 72(09), pages 03-25, May.
    16. Jonas Heiberg & Bernhard Truffer, 2021. "The emergence of a global innovation system – a case study from the water sector," GEIST - Geography of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions 2021(09), GEIST Working Paper Series.
    17. Upham, Dr Paul & Sovacool, Prof Benjamin & Ghosh, Dr Bipashyee, 2022. "Just transitions for industrial decarbonisation: A framework for innovation, participation, and justice," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    18. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.
    19. Dutrénit, Gabriela & Natera, José Miguel & Puchet Anyul, Martín & Vera-Cruz, Alexandre O., 2019. "Development profiles and accumulation of technological capabilities in Latin America," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 396-412.
    20. Lehoux, P. & Miller, F.A. & Williams-Jones, B., 2020. "Anticipatory governance and moral imagination: Methodological insights from a scenario-based public deliberation study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).

    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:eee:tefoso:v:171:y:2021:i:c:s0040162521004066. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.