IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v38y2011i8p589-597.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Democratic theory and citizen participation: democracy models in the evaluation of public participation in science and technology

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Biegelbauer
  • Janus Hansen

Abstract

We argue that some of the controversies over the democratic merits of (participatory) technology assessment can be traced to conflicting assumptions about what constitutes a legitimate democratic procedure. We compare how two influential normative models of democracy - ‘representative’ and ‘direct’ - value public engagement processes according to different criteria. Criteria drawn from this analysis are used to compare a series of case studies on xenotransplantation policy-making. We show that the democratic merits of participatory technology assessments probably owe as much to the institutional context as to the precise evaluative criteria or procedural designs. This calls for a closer interaction between science and technology studies research on public engagement and comparative politics scholarship. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Biegelbauer & Janus Hansen, 2011. "Democratic theory and citizen participation: democracy models in the evaluation of public participation in science and technology," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(8), pages 589-597, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:38:y:2011:i:8:p:589-597
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234211X13092649606404
    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. Giovanni Matteo & Pierfrancesco Nardi & Stefano Grego & Caterina Guidi, 2018. "Bibliometric analysis of Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment research," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 508-516, December.
    2. Nolde Nielsen, Kåre & Holm, Petter & Aschan, Michaela, 2015. "Results based management in fisheries: Delegating responsibility to resource users," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 442-451.
    3. Kapeller, Sandro & Biegelbauer, Peter, 2020. "How (not) to solve local conflicts around alternative energy production: Six cases of siting decisions of Austrian wind power parks," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    4. McKinley, Duncan C. & Briggs, Russell D. & Bartuska, Ann M., 2012. "When peer-reviewed publications are not enough! Delivering science for natural resource management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 1-11.
    5. D’Este, Pablo & Robinson-García, Nicolás, 2023. "Interdisciplinary research and the societal visibility of science: The advantages of spanning multiple and distant scientific fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    6. McKinley, Duncan C. & Briggs, Russell D. & Bartuska, Ann M., 2013. "Reprint of: When peer-reviewed publications are not enough! Delivering science for natural resource management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 9-19.

    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:38:y:2011:i:8:p:589-597. 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.