IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v26y1999i5p321-330.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Considering the concept of procedural justice for public policy- and decision-making in science and technology

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Joss
  • Arthur Brownlea

Abstract

The concept of procedural justice could act as a rich and useful source of theoretical inspiration and practical experience in science and technology public policy- and decision-making. Its understanding of the functional relationship between policy and decision processes, their social environments and their outcomes, its interest in the fairness aspect of procedures and its wide range of applications could add a refreshing new perspective on traditional ways of thinking in a field which has long been dominated by ‘technocratic’ discourse. It must take into account that scientific and technological issues are varied and complex, and its application would require the careful, contextual consideration of the scientific-technological issues at stake. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Joss & Arthur Brownlea, 1999. "Considering the concept of procedural justice for public policy- and decision-making in science and technology," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 321-330, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:26:y:1999:i:5:p:321-330
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154399781782347
    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. Duncan P McLaren, 2012. "Procedural Justice in Carbon Capture and Storage," Energy & Environment, , vol. 23(2-3), pages 345-365, May.
    2. Elias Damtew & Barbara Mierlo & Rico Lie & Paul Struik & Cees Leeuwis & Berga Lemaga & Christine Smart, 2020. "Governing a Collective Bad: Social Learning in the Management of Crop Diseases," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 111-134, February.
    3. Sara H. Wilford, 2018. "First Line Steps in Requirements Identification for Guidelines Development in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 539-556, October.
    4. Peter John & Aaron Martin & Gosia Mikołajczak, 2023. "Support for behavioral nudges versus alternative policy instruments and their perceived fairness and efficacy," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 363-371, April.
    5. John C Besley & Aaron M McCright & Nagwan R Zahry & Kevin C Elliott & Norbert E Kaminski & Joseph D Martin, 2017. "Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, April.

    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:26:y:1999:i:5:p:321-330. 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.