IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v38y2011i8p599-608.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stop looking up the ladder: analyzing the impact of participatory technology assessment from a process perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Erich Griessler

Abstract

Alongside the gradual increase in use of participatory technology assessment (PTA), a tool to democratize decision-making on controversial technologies, a growing body of literature on how to assess the impact of PTA has developed. A distinction can be made between two generations of impact assessment studies. The first generation includes evaluations of the effects of PTAs on the state as a bounded unit of political decision-making. The second generation of assessment studies acknowledges a wider range of loci to study impact. However, neither provides insights into how a PTA impacts the relationships between the multiple arenas of political influence and political judgment. This paper develops a framework for impact assessment from a dynamic, process-oriented perspective. It draws on the ‘dynamics of contention’ theory proposed by McAdam et al. in Dynamics of Contention (Cambridge University Press, 2001). The framework is applied to three cases of PTA on controversial medical technologies: xenotransplantation (in the Netherlands and Switzerland) and genetic testing (in Austria). Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Erich Griessler, 2011. "Stop looking up the ladder: analyzing the impact of participatory technology assessment from a process perspective," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(8), pages 599-608, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:38:y:2011:i:8:p:599-608
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234211X13111546663296
    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. Joshua B Cohen & Anne M C Loeber & ilse Marschalek & Michael J Bernstein & Vincent Blok & Raúl Tabarés & Robert Gianni & Erich Griessler, 2024. "From experimentation to structural change: fostering institutional entrepreneurship for public engagement in research and innovation," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(2), pages 324-336.
    2. Joshua B Cohen, 2022. "Institutionalizing public engagement in research and innovation: Toward the construction of institutional entrepreneurial collectives [Limits of Decentered Governance in Science-society Policies]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 673-685.
    3. António Brandão Moniz, 2012. "Avaliação participativa de tecnologia e sustentabilidade organizacional [Participative technology assessment and organisational sustainability]," IET Working Papers Series 06/2012, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology.

    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:599-608. 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.