On Constructive Technology Assessment and Limitations on Public Participation in Technology Assessment

Abstract

The paper reviews selected literature on the theory and practice of constructive technology assessment (CTA), which represents a promising approach for managing technology through society. CTA emphasises the involvement and interaction of diverse participants to facilitate ‘upstream’ (or anticipatory) learning about possible impacts of technology and socially robust decision-making. The paper seeks to identify limitations of CTA, as these relate to the broadening of debate about nascent, controversial technology. In particular, it considers the relevance of CTA to the achievement of more democratic decision-making about technology. In addition, the paper directs attention towards differences in participants' discursive capacities and rhetorical skills that may affect the role and contribution of non-expert citizens in technology assessment. The paper draws upon the debate between Habermas and Foucault to suggest promising avenues for future research based on technology assessment conceptualised as discourse. It concludes that the theory and practice of CTA may be improved by addressing explicitly possible structural limitations on the broadening of debate, whilst invoking a notion of technology assessment as discourse to point up cultural, subjective or cognitive limitations on agency.

Notes

1. J. Wilsdon and R. Willis, See-through Science—Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream (London: Demos, 2004).

2. H. K. Klein and D. L. Kleinman, The social construction of technology: Structural considerations, Science Technology and Human Values, 27(1), 2002, pp. 28–52.

3. A. Rip, T. J. Misa and J. Schot (eds), Managing Technology in Society: the Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment (London, Pinter, 1995).

4. A. Rip and J. Schot, Identifying loci for influencing the dynamics of technological development, in: K. H. Sørenson and R. Williams (eds), Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces, Tools (Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar, 2002, pp. 155–172).

5. J. Schot, Towards new forms of participatory technology development, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 13(1), 2001, pp. 39–52.

6. J. Schot and A. Rip, The past and future of constructive technology assessment, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2/3), 1997, pp. 251–268.

7. op. cit., Ref. 6.

8. D. Collingridge, The Social Control of Technology (London: Pinter, 1980).

9. op. cit., Ref. 6.

10. Ibid.

11. E. B. Koch, Why the development process should be part of medical technology assessment: Examples from the development of medical ultrasound, in: A. Rip, T. J. Misa and J. Schot (eds), Managing Technology in Society: the Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment (London, Pinter, 1995, pp. 231–260).

12. S. Joss, Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: an impact study of consensus conferences on Danish parliament and Danish public debate, Science and Public Policy, 25(1), 1998, pp. 2–22.

13. C. Marris and P-B. Joly, Lessons from an Experiment in Interactive Technology Assessment at the French National Institute for Agronomic Research, presented to 4S/EASST conference on Public Proofs: Science, Technology and Democracy, Ecole des Mines, Paris, France, August 25–28, 2004.

14. P-B. Joly, C. Marris and A. Rip, Reflections on a Project on GM in Wine Production', presented to 4S/EASST conference on Public Proofs: Science, Technology and Democracy, Ecole des Mines, Paris, France, August 25–28, 2004.

15. H. A. J. Mulder, T. A. der Heyde, R. Goffer and C. Teodosiu, Success and Failure in Starting Science Shops, SCIPAS Report No. 2, Study financed by the European Commission—DG XII programme, Improving the Human Research Potential and the Socio-economic Knowledge Base (IHP) Strategic Analysis of Specific Political issues (STRATA), contract no. HPV1-CT-1999-00001, Science Shop for Biology, Utrecht University, Netherlands, July 2001.

16. A. Rip, Co-evolution of Science, Technology and Society, Expert Review for Bundesministerium Bildung und Forschung initiative on Science Policy Studies, June 2002. Paper available at: <http://www.sciencepolicystudies.de/Rip.pdf>

17. op. cit., Ref. 4.

18. op. cit., Ref. 2.

19. op. cit., Ref. 8.

20. op. cit., Ref. 5.

21. op. cit., Ref. 6.

22. H. Nowotny, P. Scott and M. Gibbons, Rethinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty (London, Polity, 2001).

23. K. Sørensen, Cultural politics of technology: Combining critical and constructive interventions? Science, Technology and Human Values, 29(2), 2004, pp. 184–190.

24. D. Nelkin, Technological Decisions and Democracy: European Experiments in Public Participation (London, Sage, 1977).

25. G. Rowe and L. Frewer, Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation, Science Technology and Human Values, 25(1), 2000, pp. 3–29; G. Rowe, R. Marsh and L. Frewer, Evaluation of a deliberative conference, Science, Technology and Human Values, 29(1), 2004, pp. 88–121.

26. H. Banthien, M. Jaspers and A. Renner, Governance of the European Research Area: the Role of Civil Society, Interim Report, Institut fur Organisationskommunikation (IFOK), May 2003. Available at: <http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/science-society>

27. Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Committee, Fifth Report, 2002, Genetically Modified Organisms. Report available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmenvfru/767/76703.html, last accessed 10 October, 2004.

28. Agriculture and Environmental Biotechnology Commission (AEBC), A Debate about the Possible Commercialisation of GM Crops. Report available at http://www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/reports/public_attitudes_advice.shtml, last accessed 10, October, 2004.

29. Programme on Understanding Risk, A Deliberative Future: An Independent Evaluation of the GM Nation? Public Debate about the Possible Commercialisation of Transgenic crops in Britain, 2003, Understanding Risk Working Paper 04-02, University of East Anglia, 2004.

30. A. Irwin, Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development (London: Routledge, 1995).

31. Marris, op cit., Ref. 13; Joly et al., op cit. Ref. 14.

32. For example, on different approaches taken with regard to the need for consensus in car mobility policy in Denmark and Netherlands see: J. Grin, R. van der Graaf and R. Hoppe, Technology Assessment through Interaction: a Guide, Working Document 57, Rathenau Institute, 1997. Also see: ops. cit., Refs. 11, 12, 13 and 14.

33. C. E. Lindblom, Inquiry and Change (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1990); see also C. E. Lindblom and E. J. Woodhouse, The Policy Making Process (3rd edition) (New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 1993).

34. J. Grin and H. van de Graaf, Implementation as communicative action: An interpretive understanding of interactions between policy actors and target groups, Policy Sciences, 29, 1996, pp. 291–319.

35. A. Rip, New Distributed Spaces for Science and Innovation Policies, Policies for Research and Innovation in the Move Towards a European Research Area (PRIME) seminar, Cachan 17 March, 2004. Available at: http://www.melissa.ens-cachan.fr/IMG/doc/rip_siap_17-03-04.doc last accessed 21 October, 2004.

36. A. Rip, Controversies as Informal Technology Assessment, Knowledge, Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, (2), 1986, pp. 349–371.

37. D. Held, Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkeimer to Habermas (Cambridge, Polity Press, 1980).

38. J. Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: vol 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (trans. T. J. McCarthy) (Boston, Beacon Press, 1984).

39. J. Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: vol 2: Lifeworld and Systems—a Critique of Functionalist Reason (trans. T. J. McCarthy) (Cambridge, Polity Press, 1987).

40. T. K. Aladjem, On truth and disagreement: Habermas, Foucault and democratic discourse, History of European Ideas, 20(4–6), 1995, pp. 909–914.

41. M. Foucault, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977 (C. Gordon (ed), Harvester Press, Brighton, 1980).

42. D. Knights and G. Morgan, Corporate strategy, organizations and subjectivity: a critique, Organisation Studies, 12(2), 1991, pp. 252–273.

43. L. Benton and J. Short, Environmental Discourse and Practice (New York, Blackwell, 1999).

44. op. cit., Ref. 38.

45. Ibid. See also, op. cit., Ref. 32.

46. A. Feenberg, Subversive rationalization: technology, power and democracy, in: A. Feenberg and A. Hannay (eds), Technology and the Politics of Knowledge (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1995).

47. op. cit., Ref. 42.

48. op. cit., Ref. 42.

49. op. cit., Ref. 36.

50. M. Klintman, The genetically modified (GM) food labelling controversy: Ideological and epistemic crossovers, Social Studies of Science, 32(1), 2002, pp. 71–91.

51. C. Marris, B. Wynne, P. Simmons and S. Weldon, Public Attitudes to Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe (PABE), final report of EU project FAIR CT 38-3786. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities (DG 12 SSMI), 2001.

52. L. Levidow, Precautionary uncertainty: Regulating GM crops in Europe, Social Studies of Science, 31(6), 2001, pp. 842–874.

53. C. M. Condit, The meaning and effects of discourse about Genetics: Methodological variations in studies of discourse and social change, Discourse and Society, 15(4), 2004, pp. 391–407.

54. G. Cook, E. Pieri and P. Robbins, The scientists think and the Public feels: Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food, Discourse and Society, 15(4), 2004, pp. 433–449.

55. E. Seguin, Narration and legitimation: the Case of in vitro fertilization, Discourse and Society, 12(2), 2001, pp. 195–215.