Janus Hansen

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

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.

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

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.

Mode 2, systems differentiation and the significance of politico-cultural variety

The article suggests that research on public engagement with science and technology suffers from an unfortunate deficit of (cross-national) comparative research. It examines the so-called ‘mode 2 diagnosis’ (Nowotny et al. 2001) and the the relevance of the concept of ‘socially robust’ knowledge production for comparative research on public engagement practices. While providing a stimulating perspective on the novel ways in which techno-scientific innovation must be legitimised in contemporary society, the diagnosis suffers from certain conceptual deficits, which inhibit the ability to conceptualise cross-national variation in a systematic manner. Through a confrontation of the mode 2 thesis with competing theoretical approaches, the article suggests that, rather than assuming transgressions between ‘science’ and ‘society’, research must distinguish between societal (de-)differentiation and organisational reconfigurations (Luhmann). Furthermore, the concept of political culture (Jasanoff) is discussed as a tool with which to examine cross-national variation in public engagement practices. Towards the end, suggestions for empirical research building upon the discussed concepts are briefly outlined.

The Danish Biofuel Debate: Coupling Scientific and Politico-Economic Claims

Abstract What role does scientific claims-making play in the worldwide promotion of biofuels for transport, which continues despite serious concerns about its potentially adverse social and environmental effects? And how do actors with very different and conflicting viewpoints on the benefits and drawbacks of biofuels enrol scientific authority to support their positions? The sociological theory of functional differentiation combined with the concept of advocacy coalition can help in exploring this relationship between scientific claims-making and the policy stance of different actors in public debates about biofuels. In Denmark two distinct scientific perspectives about biofuels map onto the policy debates through articulation by two competing advocacy coalitions. One is a reductionist biorefinery perspective originating in biochemistry and neighbouring disciplines. This perspective works upwards from the molecular level and envisions positive synergies in the use of biomass. The other is a holistic bioscarcity perspective originating in life-cycle analysis and ecology. This perspective works downwards from global resource scope conditions, and envisions negative consequences from an increased reliance on biomass. Understanding how these scientific perspectives and policy stances are coupled sheds light on three contentious policy questions: how Denmark should include biomass in its energy provision, what role Denmark might play in the global development of biofuels and what kind of subsidy schemes should be implemented.

Assessing the impacts of citizen participation in science governance: exploring new roads in comparative analysis

In this paper we explore new avenues of analysis on the thorny issue of the impact of participatory technology assessment (PTA). We apply qualitative comparative analysis to data abstracted from a series of detailed country case studies of policy-making on xenotransplantation to explore which factors are decisive for policy outcomes. Contrary to our expectations that PTAs would contribute to restrictive policy outcomes, we find that this is not the case and that a combination of politicisation and public vigilance is pivotal to explaining policy outcomes. Further, our analysis was symmetrical in attempting to account for both permissive and restrictive policies. We conclude that the paper makes both a substantial and a methodological contribution to the literature on public participation in technology assessment and policy-making. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

The Anatomy of a Technological Controversy

This chapter outlines a basic ‘anatomy’ of the controversies over agricultural biotechnology, which have motivated the calls for expanded public engagement. It accounts for important sociological aspects of the controversies and the effects they have had on the governance of biotechnology as a prerequisite for analysing public engagement practices in the subsequent chapters.

Analysing PTAs in a Polycontextual Society

The emergence of public engagement procedures as a response to technological controversies is not an incidental phenomenon in modern societies. Such procedures are all intimately linked to the structures and dynamics of contemporary societies. Yet, they take on very different forms, so how can we analyse and interpret similarities and differences of such procedures in a fruitful manner? This chapter explores some of the concepts central to the study of technological controversies such as ‘risk’, ‘trust’, ‘participation’ and ‘the public’ within a broader sociological analysis of modern society as a means to render diverse processes comparable. The discussion of these concepts is based on the systems theoretical approach of Niklas Luhmann, whose work has found little application in the research on public engagement (in English) so far (see e.g. Bora 1999). The chapter is therefore also a discussion of how technological controversies and public engagement can be analysed within this paradigm.

Discourses of Public Engagement

Societal controversies over new technologies, understood broadly as the communication of dissent in public, have set off searches for new ways to establish and maintain the legitimacy and public acceptance of technological innovations. In this chapter I introduce some of the most influential arguments that increased ‘public engagement’ is both a feasible and a desirable way to (re)configure the interaction between science, technology and the wider society. These arguments do not form a unitary body of ideas, but make up a conglomerate of diagnoses and regulative ideals, forming what I term a discourse of public engagement. This discourse is receiving increasing attention among both academics and policy-makers, and ideas about public engagement are gaining strength in a number of policy contexts. As such, the discourse of engagement is part of the ideational context in which specific participatory procedures are developed and from which they seek to establish their legitimacy.

Introduction: Managing the Tension between Science and Democracy — the Case of Public Engagement Processes

Over the past three decades or so, the world has witnessed a number of scientific discoveries and technological innovations in biology, biotechnology and genetically based medicine. These are currently in the process of substantially transforming both food production and healthcare in technical as well as social terms. For those promoting the technologies, such developments hold promises of a better world, for the sceptics they entail Faustian dangers and embody a lot of what is wrong with the modern world. These diverging evaluations of the same technologies provide the material for what seems to be perpetual social controversy.

Engaging the Public in Denmark — The Problem of Resonance

In the literature on how to promote public engagement with new technologies the Consensus Conference (CC), a procedural innovation ascribed to the Danish Board of Technology (DBT), is often pointed out as a promising procedural format. In Denmark, the DBT has indeed been an important institutional locus of public engagement, and internationally, CCs are often presented as paradigmatic examples of how increased public involvement with science and technology can be organised (e.g. Joss and Durant 1995, Sclove 1995: 217–19, Einseidl et al. 2001).