IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v44y2011i2p157-177.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technology assessment in Australia: the case for a formal agency to improve advice to policy makers

Author

Listed:
  • A. Russell
  • Frank Vanclay
  • Janet Salisbury
  • Heather Aslin

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • A. Russell & Frank Vanclay & Janet Salisbury & Heather Aslin, 2011. "Technology assessment in Australia: the case for a formal agency to improve advice to policy makers," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(2), pages 157-177, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:44:y:2011:i:2:p:157-177
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-010-9120-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11077-010-9120-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-010-9120-4?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. Alison Mohr, 2002. "Of being seen to do the right thing: Provisional findings from the first Australian consensus conference on Gene Technology in the Food Chain," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 2-12, February.
    2. Frank Fischer, 1999. "Technological deliberation in a democratic society: The case for participatory inquiry," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 294-302, October.
    3. Carolyn M. Hendriks & John S. Dryzek & Christian Hunold, 2007. "Turning Up the Heat: Partisanship in Deliberative Innovation," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55, pages 362-383, June.
    4. John Durant, 1999. "Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 313-319, October.
    5. Simon Shohet, 1996. "Biotechnology in Europe: contentions in the risk-regulation debate," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 117-122, April.
    6. Carolyn M. Hendriks & John S. Dryzek & Christian Hunold, 2007. "Turning Up the Heat: Partisanship in Deliberative Innovation," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(2), pages 362-383, June.
    7. Ronald Brunner, 2006. "A Paradigm for Practice," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 39(2), pages 135-167, June.
    8. Peter Wilshusen & Richard Wallace, 2009. "Integrative problem solving: the policy sciences as a framework for conservation policy and planning," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(2), pages 91-93, May.
    9. Pierre-Benoit Joly & Arie Rip, 2007. "A timely harvest," Nature, Nature, vol. 450(7167), pages 174-174, November.
    10. Simon Joss, 1998. "Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: An impact study of consensus conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish public debate," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 2-22, February.
    11. Williams, Robin & Edge, David, 1996. "The social shaping of technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 865-899, September.
    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. Cobi Smith, 2014. "Public Engagement in Prioritizing Research Proposals," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, February.

    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. Robert Weymouth & Janette Hartz-Karp & Dora Marinova, 2020. "Repairing Political Trust for Practical Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-25, August.
    2. Gunn, Callum J. & Bertelsen, Neil & Regeer, Barbara J. & Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan, 2021. "Valuing patient engagement: Reflexive learning in evidence generation practices for health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    3. Chris Skelcher & Jacob Torfing, 2010. "Improving democratic governance through institutional design: Civic participation and democratic ownership in Europe," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 71-91, March.
    4. Andrew F Smith, 2014. "Political deliberation and the challenge of bounded rationality," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 13(3), pages 269-291, August.
    5. Jonathan White & Lea Ypi, 2010. "Rethinking the Modern Prince: Partisanship and the Democratic Ethos," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 809-828, October.
    6. Hodgetts, Katherine & Elshaug, Adam G. & Hiller, Janet E., 2012. "What counts and how to count it: Physicians’ constructions of evidence in a disinvestment context," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2191-2199.
    7. Margaret Gollagher & Janette Hartz-Karp, 2013. "The Role of Deliberative Collaborative Governance in Achieving Sustainable Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-24, May.
    8. Matheus Alves Zanella & Ariane Goetz & Stephan Rist & Oscar Schmidt & Jes Weigelt, 2018. "Deliberation in Multi-Stakeholder Participation: A Heuristic Framework Applied to the Committee on World Food Security," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-21, February.
    9. Buizer, Marleen & Van Herzele, Ann, 2012. "Combining deliberative governance theory and discourse analysis to understand the deliberative incompleteness of centrally formulated plans," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 93-101.
    10. Jennifer J. Roberts & Ruth Lightbody & Ragne Low & Stephen Elstub, 2020. "Experts and evidence in deliberation: scrutinising the role of witnesses and evidence in mini-publics, a case study," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(1), pages 3-32, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Cuppen, Eefje, 2012. "A quasi-experimental evaluation of learning in a stakeholder dialogue on bio-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 624-637.
    13. Roberts, Rhonda, 1998. "Managing innovation: The pursuit of competitive advantage and the design of innovation intense environments," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 159-175, June.
    14. Susan Clark & Toddi Steelman, 2013. "Interviewing for an interdisciplinary job: principled goals, pragmatic outcomes, and finding the right fit in academia," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(1), pages 21-29, March.
    15. Benjamin Cole & Preeta Banerjee, 2013. "Morally Contentious Technology-Field Intersections: The Case of Biotechnology in the United States," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 555-574, July.
    16. Al Lily, Abdulrahman Essa & Ismail, Abdelrahim Fathy & Abunasser, Fathi Mohammed & Alhajhoj Alqahtani, Rafdan Hassan, 2020. "Distance education as a response to pandemics: Coronavirus and Arab culture," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    17. Geels, Frank W., 2006. "The hygienic transition from cesspools to sewer systems (1840-1930): The dynamics of regime transformation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1069-1082, September.
    18. König, Pascal D. & Wenzelburger, Georg, 2021. "The legitimacy gap of algorithmic decision-making in the public sector: Why it arises and how to address it," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    19. Real, Alejandra & Hickey, Gordon M., 2013. "Publicly funded research: A participative experience from the Chilean Native Forest Research Fund," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 37-43.
    20. Vatn, Arild, 2009. "An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2207-2215, June.

    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:kap:policy:v:44:y:2011:i:2:p:157-177. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.