IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v25y1998i1p2-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: An impact study of consensus conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish public debate

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Joss

Abstract

The function of participation in institutionalised technology assessment is discussed using the example of the Danish consensus conferences. The results of a postal survey of, and in-depth interviews with, Members of the Danish Parliament are reported. Additionally, results are given of a representative public opinion poll regarding the public's awareness of the consensus conferences. The paper concludes that participation should be understood as a facilitating mechanism of rather than a substitute for, technology assessment by the representative decision-making institutions; and that it is more likely to be effective if it relates to a strong and articulate civil society. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:25:y:1998:i:1:p:2-22
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/spp/25.1.2
    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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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).
    2. Vatn, Arild, 2009. "An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2207-2215, June.
    3. Spash, Clive L., 2007. "Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV) in Theory," MPRA Paper 101132, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Spash, Clive L., 2007. "Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 690-699, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Abels, Gabriele, 2002. "Experts, Citizens, and Eurocrats Towards a Policy Shift in the Governance of Biopolitics in the EU," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 6, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Nick F. Pidgeon & Wouter Poortinga & Gene Rowe & Tom Horlick‐Jones & John Walls & Tim O'Riordan, 2005. "Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 467-479, April.
    9. Robert Weymouth & Janette Hartz-Karp & Dora Marinova, 2020. "Repairing Political Trust for Practical Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-25, August.
    10. Otieno, James Origa, 2019. "The Public Policy process: A conceptual framework for understanding policy processes and opportunities for influencing policy outcomes," EconStor Preprints 191527, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.

    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:25:y:1998:i:1:p:2-22. 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.