Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lost in Translation? Challenges for Participatory Governance of Science and Technology

  • Chapter
Wozu Experten?

Abstract

When, in the mid-1980s, the Royal Society in London published its influential Public Understanding of Science (1985) report, its main concern was the public’s alleged lack of sufficient knowledge and appreciation of science and technology; it feared this lack could hamper scientific-technological progress. This appeared to be born out by various public controversies and opinion surveys. The report sparked numerous initiatives and activities aimed at communicating science to the public and improving public perceptions of scientific-technological issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abels, Gabriele/Bora, Alfons (Hg. 2004): Demokratische Technikbewertung. Bielefeld: transcript

    Google Scholar 

  • Banthien, Henning/Jaspers, Michael/Renner, Andreas (2003): Governance of the European Research Area. The Role of Civil Society. Bensheim: Institut für Organisationskommunikation

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Ulrich (1992): Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Ulrich (1999): What is Globalisation? Cambridge: Polity Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Bütschi, Danielle/Nentwich, Michael (2002): The Role of Participatory Technology Assessment in the Policy-making Process. In: Joss, Simon/Bellucci, Sergio (Hg.), S. 235–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronberg, Taria (1995): Do Marginal Voices Shape Technology? In: Joss, Simon/Durant, John (Hg.): Public Participation in Science. The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Robert (1994): A democratic dilemma: system effectiveness versus citizen participation. In: Political Science Quarterly, Bd. 109, H. 1, S. 23–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Frank (1999): Technological deliberation in a democratic society: the case for participatory inquiry. In: Science and Public Policy, Bd. 26, H. 5, S. 294–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin, James (1991): Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven/London: Yale University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Fixdal, Jon (1997): Consensus conferences as ‘extended peer groups’. In: Science and Public Policy, Bd. 24, H. 6, S. 366–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, Steve (2000): The Governance of Science. Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Gloede, Fritz/Hennen, Leonhard (2002): Germany: a Difference that Makes a Difference?” In: Joss, Simon/Bellucci, Sergio (Hg.), S. 92–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Grote, Jürgen/Gbikpi, Bernard (Hg. 2002): Participatory Governance: Political and Societal Implications. Opladen: Leske + Budrich

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennen, Leonhard (1999): Participatory technology assessment: a response to technical modernity? Science and Public Policy, Bd. 26, H. 5, S. 303–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords (2000): Science and Society. Paper 38. London: The Stationery Office

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, Bob (2000): Governance Failure. In: Stoker, Gerry (Hg.): The New Politics of British Local Governance. Basingstoke/London: Macmillan Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Joly, Pierre Benoit/Assouline, Gerald (Hg. 2001): Assessing Public Debate and Participation in Technology Assessment in Europe: ADAPTA Project Report. Grenoble: Institut Nationale de la Recherche Agriculture (INRA)/ Theys: QAP Decision

    Google Scholar 

  • Joss, Simon (1998): Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: an impact study of consensus conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish public debate. In: Science and Public Policy, Bd. 25, H. 1, S. 2–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Joss, Simon (2002): United Kingdom. From Public Understanding to Public Participation? In: Joss, Simon/Bellucci, Sergio (Hg.), S. 140–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Joss, Simon/Bellucci, Sergio (Hg. 2002): Participatory Technology Assessment. European Perspectives. London: Centre for the Study of Democracy (University of Westminster)

    Google Scholar 

  • Joss, Simon (2005): Between Policy and Politics, or: Whatever Do Weapons of Mass Destruction Have to Do with GM Crops? The UK’s GM Nation Public Debate as an Example of Participatory Governance. In: Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making; Sociology of Sciences Bd. 24, S. 171–187

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Klüver, Lars (2002): Denmark: Participation — A Given in Danish Culture? In: Joss, Simon/Bellucci, Sergio (Hg.), S. 7–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Kooiman, Jan (Hg. 1993): Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions. London et al.: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, Colin/Winstanley, Monica/Gunning, Jennifer/Durant, John (1994): Towards a public consensus on biotechnology. In: Science in Parliament, Bd. 51, H. 2, S. 14–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierre, Jon/Peters, Guy (2000): Governance, Politics and the State. Basingstoke/London: Macmillan Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, Ortwin (1992): The Social Arena Concept of Risk Debates. In: Krimsky, Sheldon/Golding, Dominic (Hg.): Social Theories of Risk. Westport: Praeger Publishers, S. 179–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Society (1985): The Public Understanding of Science. London: The Royal Society

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitter, Philippe (2002): Participation in Governance Arrangements: Is There Any Reason to Expect it Will Achieve ‘Sustainable and Innovative Policies in a Multilevel Context’? In: Grote, Jürgen/Gbikpi, Bernhard (Hg.), S. 51–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Science Museum (1994): UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology: Final Report. London: Science Museum Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Sclove, Richard (1995): Democracy and Technology. New York und London: The Guilford Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Spichal, Slavko (1999): Public Opinion: Developments and Controversies in the Twentieth Century. Lanham et al: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • van Est, Rinie/van Eijndhoven, Josée/Aarts, Wilma/Loeber, Anne (2002): The Netherlands: Seeking to Involve Wider Publics in Technology Assessment. In: Joss, Simon/Bellucci, Sergio (Hg.), S. 108–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Vig, Norman/Paschen, Herbert (Hg. 2000): Parliaments and Technology: The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. Albany: State University of New York Press

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Simon Joss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Alexander Bogner Helge Torgersen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Joss, S. (2005). Lost in Translation? Challenges for Participatory Governance of Science and Technology. In: Bogner, A., Torgersen, H. (eds) Wozu Experten?. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80692-5_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80692-5_10

  • Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-531-14515-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-322-80692-5

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Science (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation