Michiel Van Oudheusden

Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond

Responsible innovation (RI) is founded on the idea that present modes of innovating with science and technology fail because they insufficiently take into account societal needs and values. Hence, proponents of RI solicit societys opinions in an attempt to render science and technology developments, institutions, and policies more socially responsive. This article asks how the RI concept is taken up and elaborated, based on accounts developed on the European Union policy level and on a Flemish, technology assessment level. It finds that, notwithstanding important differences between these two deliberative frameworks, neither one leaves much room for politics, understood as the constitution and contestation of power. Rather, these frameworks largely ignore questions about the politics in and of deliberation, the authoritative allocation of values, and the institutional uptake of deliberative engagements. The articles aim is to provide constructive criticism of the RI paradigm by rendering these political...

Contesting Co-Inquiry: "Noncommunicative" Discourse in a Flemish Participatory Technology Assessment

This article explores how social scientists, ethicists, and nanotechnologists construct research decisions together, while engaged in a Flemish participatory technology assessment on nanotechnologies. It finds that they routinely probe one another to make substantive contributions but avoid the argumentative initiative itself through various discursive strategies, such as reversing roles and delegating responsibility. It argues that these strategies emanate through the project’s methodology of co-inquiry, which depends on sharing and partnership, whereas some members resist participating on initiators’ terms. It links such “noncommunicative” action to unresolved disagreements between participants about project ends, conflicting approaches to decision making, and divergent appreciations of “uncertainty.”This article explores how social scientists, ethicists, and nanotechnologists construct research decisions together, while engaged in a Flemish participatory technology assessment on nanotechnologies. It finds that they routinely probe one another to make substantive contributions but avoid the argumentative initiative itself through various discursive strategies, such as reversing roles and delegating responsibility. It argues that these strategies emanate through the project’s methodology of co-inquiry, which depends on sharing and partnership, whereas some members resist participating on initiators’ terms. It links such “noncommunicative” action to unresolved disagreements between participants about project ends, conflicting approaches to decision making, and divergent appreciations of “uncertainty.”

Learning in, through, and about participatory technology assessment: the case of Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow's Society (NanoSoc)

In participatory technology assessment (pTA), technical and nontechnical communities convene to share their views on a sociotechnical challenge, in an attempt to render technology research and development more socially robust. Taking these commitments to transdisciplinary collaboration and co-construction of technology as entry points, this article describes key tensions that emerged in a Flemish pTA project on nanotechnologies, entitled ‘Nanotechnologies for Tomorrows Society’ (NanoSoc). The tensions relate to how the terms of participation were enacted, the potentially conflicting aims embedded in the projects mission and methods, the various roles initiating pTA researchers (social scientists) assumed throughout the projects duration, and the deliberative-democratic rationale that sustains pTA frameworks at large. The article is a response to a pressing question posed to the author by pTA professionals, project participants and policymakers who ask publics to partake in science and technology decisi...In participatory technology assessment (pTA), technical and nontechnical communities convene to share their views on a sociotechnical challenge, in an attempt to render technology research and development more socially robust. Taking these commitments to transdisciplinary collaboration and co-construction of technology as entry points, this article describes key tensions that emerged in a Flemish pTA project on nanotechnologies, entitled ‘Nanotechnologies for Tomorrows Society’ (NanoSoc). The tensions relate to how the terms of participation were enacted, the potentially conflicting aims embedded in the projects mission and methods, the various roles initiating pTA researchers (social scientists) assumed throughout the projects duration, and the deliberative-democratic rationale that sustains pTA frameworks at large. The article is a response to a pressing question posed to the author by pTA professionals, project participants and policymakers who ask publics to partake in science and technology decision making: now that NanoSoc is concluded, what can we learn from it?

Absent, yet present? Moving with ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’ in radiation protection research

ABSTRACTResponsible Research and Innovation (RRI) remains an essentially contested concept, yet potentially facilitates the development of a substantial network comprising actors with a variety of roles, expectations, and stakes, including researchers across technical and social sciences and humanities. Although the notion of RRI is absent in research programs for nuclear research and development (RD the lack o...

Participation Beyond Consensus? Technology Assessments, Consensus Conferences and Democratic Modulation

Abstract In this article, we inquire into two contemporary participatory formats that seek to democratically intervene in scientific practice: the consensus conference and participatory technology assessment (pTA). We explain how these formats delegitimize conflict and disagreement by making a strong appeal to consensus. Based on our direct involvement in these formats and informed both by political philosophy and science and technology studies, we outline conceptions that contrast with the consensus ideal, including dissensus, disclosure, conflictual consensus and agonistic democracy. Drawing on the notion of meta-consensus and a distinction between four models of democracy (aggregative, deliberative, participatory and agonistic), we elaborate how a more positive valuation of conflict provides opportunities for mutual learning, the articulation of disagreement, and democratic modulation—three aspirations that are at the heart of most pTAs and consensus conferences. Disclosing the strengths and weaknesses of these different models is politically and epistemically useful, and should therefore be an integral part of the development of participation theory and process in science and technology.

Learning from Incidents and Incident Reporting: Safety Governance at a Belgian Nuclear Research Center

This article examines how incidents are governed in a Belgian Nuclear Research Center by way of an incident reporting system (IRS) named Retour d’Experiences (REX). Drawing on a documentary analysis of incident reports, interviews, and focus groups with personnel, it illustrates how REX enacts a safety governmentality centered on identifying incident causes and culprits. As this governmentality mode obscures the epistemic and political character of incidents, it closes down important opportunities for collective learning about safety and safety governance. It is argued that joint reflection about incidents and resistances toward incident reporting serve as fruitful starting points for a more reflexive safety governance that makes explicit how decisions are made in high-risk contexts. Social scientists can enhance governance of this kind by pointing to different perceptions and evaluations of incidents and by insisting that contending interpretations are confronted and accounted for.