Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Boundary-making in the International Organization: Public Engagement Expertise at the OECD

  • Chapter
Knowing Governance

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Science, Knowledge and Policy ((SKP))

Abstract

Science and Technology Studies (STS) have shown that the production of public expertise is central to understand the functioning of modern democracies. Since Bruno Latour argued that the modern constitution is based on the allocation of work between the representation of nature and the political representation, and a perpetual purification work to make this boundary hold (Latour 1993); many works have explored the role of expertise in the production of this dichotomy. Sheila Jasanoff’s detailed analysis of the expertise institutions in the United States, for instance, has displayed how the construction of objective science within public agencies is a component of a constitutional ordering allocating powers and responsibilities, defining individual and collective identities, and stabilizing a shared imaginary of science as a way of dealing with the constrains of an adversarial regulatory system (Jasanoff 1987, 1990, 2005).

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

  • Bimber, B. A. (1996) The politics of expertise in Congress: The rise and fall of the Office of Technology Assessment (Albany: SUNY Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonneuil, C. and Levidow, L. (2012) ‘How does the World Trade Organization know? The mobilization and staging of scientific expertise in the GMO trade dispute’, Social Studies of Science, 42(1), 75–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chilvers, J. (2010) Sustainable participation. Mapping out and reflecting on the field of public dialogue on science and technology, Working Paper (Harwell: Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre).

    Google Scholar 

  • Desrosières, A. (2002) The politics of large numbers: A history of statistical reasoning (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenstein, V. and Laurent, B. (2015) ‘State experiments with public participation. French nanotechnology, Congolese deforestation and the search for national publics’, in Chilvers, J. and Kearnes, M. (eds.), Remaking participation. Science, democracy and emergent publics (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2008) Commission Recommendation of 07/02/2008 on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research (Bruxelles, C(2008) 424 final).

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (2004) Sécurité, territoire, population: Cours au Collège de France, 1977–1978 (Paris: Gallimard).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gayon, V. (2009) ‘Un atelier d’écriture internationale: l’OCDE au travail. Éléments de sociologie de la forme «rapport»’, Sociologie du travail, 51(3), 324–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T. F. (1983) ‘Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists’, American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godin, B. (2006) ‘The knowledge-based economy: Conceptual framework or buzzword?’, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 17–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, M. (2001) ‘The birth of a discipline producing authoritative green knowledge, World Bank-style’, Ethnography, 2(2), 191–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilgartner, S. (2000) Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama (Stanford: Stanford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1987) ‘Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science’, Social Studies of Science, 17(2), 195–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1990) The fifth branch (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1992) ‘Science, politics and the renegotiation of expertise at EPA’, Osiris, 7, 192–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2005) Designs on nature. Science and democracy in Europe and the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Joly, P.-B. and Kaufmann, A. (2008) ‘Lost in translation. The need for upstream engagement with nanotechnology on trial’, Science as Culture, 17(3), 225–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelty, C. (2009) ‘Beyond implications and applications: The story of safety by design’, Nanoethics, 3(2), 79–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1993) We have never been modern (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurent, B. (2011a) ‘Technologies of democracy. Experiments and demonstrations’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(1), 649–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurent, B. (2011b) Democracies on trial. Assembling nanotechnology and its problems, PhD Dissertation, Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lezaun, J. and Soneryd, L. (2007) ‘Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics’, Public Understanding of Science, 16(3), 279–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M. and Wynne B. (2005) ‘Nanotechnology governance and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences?’, Science Communication, 27(2), 268–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. (2001) ‘Hybrid management: Boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26, 478–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (1979), Technology on trial. Public participation in decision-making related to science and technology (Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2001a) Citizens as partners. Information, consultation and participation in policy-making (Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2001b) Citizens as partners. OECD handbook on information, consultation and public participation in policy-making (Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2001c) Engaging citizens in policy-making: Information, consultation and public participation, Public Management Policy Brief No. 10 (Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2003a) Open government. Fostering dialogue with civil society (Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2003b) Promise and problems of e-democracy. Challenges of online engagement (Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2003c) Engaging citizens online for better policy making. A policy brief (Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2008) Mind the gap: Opening open an inclusive policy making. An issues paper, Public Governance Committee (Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2012) Planning guide for public engagement and outreach in nanotechnology. Key points for consideration when planning public engagement activities in nanotechnology (Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. and Roco, M. (2006) ‘Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8, 153–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revel, Martine et al. (2007) Le débat public, une expérience française de démocratie participative (Paris: La Découverte).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (2006) ‘Folk theories of nanotechnologists’, Science as Culture, 15(4), 349–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004) See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream (London: Demos).

    Google Scholar 

  • Winickoff, D., Jasanoff, S., Busch, L., Grove-White, R., and Wynne, B. (2005) ‘Adjudicating the GM food wars: Science, risk, and democracy in world trade law’, Yale Journal of International Law, 30, 81–123.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Brice Laurent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Technische Universität Berlin, Germany

    Jan-Peter Voß (Professor of Sociology of Politics) (Professor of Sociology of Politics)

  2. University of Edinburgh, UK

    Richard Freeman (Professor of Social Science and Public Policy) (Professor of Social Science and Public Policy)

Copyright information

© 2016 Brice Laurent

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Laurent, B. (2016). Boundary-making in the International Organization: Public Engagement Expertise at the OECD. In: Voß, JP., Freeman, R. (eds) Knowing Governance. Palgrave Studies in Science, Knowledge and Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137514509_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137514509_10

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-349-56476-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-51450-9

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation