IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v33y2006i8p571-584.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Operationalising the public in participatory technology assessment: A framework for comparison applied to three cases

Author

Listed:
  • Janus Hansen

Abstract

This article suggests that research on participatory technology assessment (PTA) ought to aim for more systematic comparative research, spanning diverse procedural designs and contexts. The article accounts for the development of a theory-generated, operational framework to guide mapping and comparisons of PTAs. The framework consists of a matrix of research questions derived from a Luhmann-inspired analysis of social functions fulfilled by participatory procedures, addressing issues of risk, trust and mediation. This framework is applied to analyse three recent PTA procedures regarding agricultural biotechnology from Denmark, the UK and Germany. In conclusion, some challenges facing such procedures are discussed. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Janus Hansen, 2006. "Operationalising the public in participatory technology assessment: A framework for comparison applied to three cases," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(8), pages 571-584, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:33:y:2006:i:8:p:571-584
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154306781778678
    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. Goodfellow, Martin J. & Williams, Hugo R. & Azapagic, Adisa, 2011. "Nuclear renaissance, public perception and design criteria: An exploratory review," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 6199-6210, October.

    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:33:y:2006:i:8:p:571-584. 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.