Innovating public participation methods: Technoscientization and reflexive engagement
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2016 |
Outros Autores: | |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10316/36334 https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716641350 |
Resumo: | We reconstruct the innovation journey of ‘citizen panels’, as a family of participation methods, over four decades and across different sites of development and application. A process of aggregation leads from local practices of designing participatory procedures like the citizens jury, planning cell, or consensus conference in the 1970s and 1980s, to the disembedding and proliferation of procedural formats in the 1990s, and into the trans-local consolidation of participatory practices through laboratory-based expertise since about 2000. Our account highlights a central irony: antitechnocratic engagements with governance gave birth to efforts at establishing technoscientific control over questions of political procedure. But such efforts have been met with various forms of reflexive engagement that draw out implications and turn design questions back into matters of concern. An emerging informal assessment regime for technologies of participation as yet prevents closure on one dominant global design for democracy beyond the state. |
id |
RCAP_3a2a69985129383a7aea9534df3bb666 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:estudogeral.uc.pt:10316/36334 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Innovating public participation methods: Technoscientization and reflexive engagementInnovation in governanceCitizens juryConsensus conferencePlanning cellPublic participationTechnology assessmentWe reconstruct the innovation journey of ‘citizen panels’, as a family of participation methods, over four decades and across different sites of development and application. A process of aggregation leads from local practices of designing participatory procedures like the citizens jury, planning cell, or consensus conference in the 1970s and 1980s, to the disembedding and proliferation of procedural formats in the 1990s, and into the trans-local consolidation of participatory practices through laboratory-based expertise since about 2000. Our account highlights a central irony: antitechnocratic engagements with governance gave birth to efforts at establishing technoscientific control over questions of political procedure. But such efforts have been met with various forms of reflexive engagement that draw out implications and turn design questions back into matters of concern. An emerging informal assessment regime for technologies of participation as yet prevents closure on one dominant global design for democracy beyond the state.SAGE2016-10info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://hdl.handle.net/10316/36334http://hdl.handle.net/10316/36334https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716641350https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716641350eng0306-31271460-3659http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306312716641350Voß, Jan-PeterAmelung, Ninainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2021-06-29T10:03:21Zoai:estudogeral.uc.pt:10316/36334Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T20:50:19.240448Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Innovating public participation methods: Technoscientization and reflexive engagement |
title |
Innovating public participation methods: Technoscientization and reflexive engagement |
spellingShingle |
Innovating public participation methods: Technoscientization and reflexive engagement Voß, Jan-Peter Innovation in governance Citizens jury Consensus conference Planning cell Public participation Technology assessment |
title_short |
Innovating public participation methods: Technoscientization and reflexive engagement |
title_full |
Innovating public participation methods: Technoscientization and reflexive engagement |
title_fullStr |
Innovating public participation methods: Technoscientization and reflexive engagement |
title_full_unstemmed |
Innovating public participation methods: Technoscientization and reflexive engagement |
title_sort |
Innovating public participation methods: Technoscientization and reflexive engagement |
author |
Voß, Jan-Peter |
author_facet |
Voß, Jan-Peter Amelung, Nina |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Amelung, Nina |
author2_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Voß, Jan-Peter Amelung, Nina |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Innovation in governance Citizens jury Consensus conference Planning cell Public participation Technology assessment |
topic |
Innovation in governance Citizens jury Consensus conference Planning cell Public participation Technology assessment |
description |
We reconstruct the innovation journey of ‘citizen panels’, as a family of participation methods, over four decades and across different sites of development and application. A process of aggregation leads from local practices of designing participatory procedures like the citizens jury, planning cell, or consensus conference in the 1970s and 1980s, to the disembedding and proliferation of procedural formats in the 1990s, and into the trans-local consolidation of participatory practices through laboratory-based expertise since about 2000. Our account highlights a central irony: antitechnocratic engagements with governance gave birth to efforts at establishing technoscientific control over questions of political procedure. But such efforts have been met with various forms of reflexive engagement that draw out implications and turn design questions back into matters of concern. An emerging informal assessment regime for technologies of participation as yet prevents closure on one dominant global design for democracy beyond the state. |
publishDate |
2016 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2016-10 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10316/36334 http://hdl.handle.net/10316/36334 https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716641350 https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716641350 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10316/36334 https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716641350 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
0306-3127 1460-3659 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306312716641350 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
SAGE |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
SAGE |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799133784995528704 |