IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ita/itaman/10_02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Instructions for being unhappy with PTA — The impact on PTA of Austrian technology policy experts´ conceptualisation of the public

Author

Listed:
  • Lievrouw, Leah A.

Abstract

Participatory Technology Assessment (PTA) is said to increase democratic legitimacy, take up lay knowledge and improve technological solutions. Today it is part of science/technology policy rhetoric and, sometimes, practice. We confront some elements of the scholarly discussion on PTA with policy-makers’ understandings of the process in Austria. Here, participation often gets framed as a form of PR and a sensor for public sentiments rather than as a forum of multiple rationalities and co-development of policy projects. This understanding can be related to underlying conceptions of democracy and the public. As a conclusion, governance styles would have to change before PTA was to become more than a laboratory experiment.

Suggested Citation

  • Lievrouw, Leah A., 2010. "Instructions for being unhappy with PTA — The impact on PTA of Austrian technology policy experts´ conceptualisation of the public," ITA manu:scripts 10_02, Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA).
    • Handle: RePEc:ita:itaman:10_02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://epub.oeaw.ac.at/ita/ita-manuscript/ita_10_02.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alfons Bora & Heiko Hausendorf, 2006. "Participatory science governance revisited: Normative expectations versus empirical evidence," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(7), pages 478-488, August.
    2. Ulrike Felt & Maximilian Fochler, 2008. "The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation in science and technology," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(7), pages 489-499, August.
    3. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lyall, Catherine & Tait, Joyce, 2019. "Beyond the limits to governance: New rules of engagement for the tentative governance of the life sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1128-1137.
    2. Sauermann, Henry & Vohland, Katrin & Antoniou, Vyron & Balázs, Bálint & Göbel, Claudia & Karatzas, Kostas & Mooney, Peter & Perelló, Josep & Ponti, Marisa & Samson, Roeland & Winter, Silvia, 2020. "Citizen science and sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    3. Evelien de Hoop, 2020. "More Democratic Sustainability Governance through Participatory Knowledge Production? A Framework and Systematic Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-30, July.
    4. Abby Kinchy, 2010. "Anti-genetic engineering activism and scientized politics in the case of “contaminated” Mexican maize," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 27(4), pages 505-517, December.
    5. Perng, Sung-Yueh, 2017. "Practices and politics of collaborative urban infrastructuring: Traffic Light Box Artworks in Dublin Streets," OSF Preprints 2xpq7, Center for Open Science.
    6. Lonneke M. Poort & Jac. A. A. Swart & Ruth Mampuys & Arend J. Waarlo & Paul C. Struik & Lucien Hanssen, 2022. "Restore politics in societal debates on new genomic techniques," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1207-1216, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Kröger, Sandra, 2008. "Nothing but consultation: The place of organised civil society in EU policy-making across policies," European Governance Papers (EUROGOV) 3, CONNEX and EUROGOV networks.
    9. Cuppen, Eefje, 2012. "A quasi-experimental evaluation of learning in a stakeholder dialogue on bio-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 624-637.

    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:ita:itaman:10_02. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Werner Kabelka (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ioeawat.html .

    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.