Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow’s Society: A Case for Reflective Action Research in Flanders, Belgium

Goorden, Lieve; Oudheusden, Michiel Van; Evers, Johan; Deblonde, Marian

doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8416-4_14

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By the end of last century, it became clear that policymakers in Flanders did develop contradictory policy strategies to cope with the uncertainties and dilemmas described above [22]. From the 1980s on, governmental innovation policy was framed within a top down approach characterized by attempts to centralize control on innovation.…”

Section: Governing Uncertainties In a Flemish Contextmentioning

confidence: 98%

Lose One Another ... and Find One Another in Nanospace. ‘Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow’s Society: A Case for Reflective Action Research in Flanders (NanoSoc)’

et al. 2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main objective of the Flemish research project 'Nanotechnologies for tomorrow's society' (NanoSoc) is to develop and try out an interactive process as a suitable methodology for rendering nanoresearchers aware of underlying assumptions that guide nanotech research and integrating social considerations into the research choices they face. In particular, the NanoSoc process should sustain scientists' capacities to address growing uncertainties on the strategic, scientific and public acceptance level. The article elaborates on these uncertainties and involved dilemmas scientists are facing and proposes a process approach which addresses strategic uncertainty by alternating between 'visioning' and 'technology assessment'; a process design which manages complexity by promoting reflexivity among scientists by exposing them to deliberations in civil society (social experts, stakeholders, citizens) on plausible futures with nanotechnologies; and as an answer to societal ambivalence, certain process quality requirements such as an attitude of perplexity or openness towards 'plurality' and an attitude of 'temporary closure', both in support of understanding and learning from differences.

show abstract

Section: Governing Uncertainties In a Flemish Contextmentioning

confidence: 98%

Lose One Another ... and Find One Another in Nanospace. ‘Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow’s Society: A Case for Reflective Action Research in Flanders (NanoSoc)’

et al. 2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here, ''expert practitioners'' refers to formal advisors, professionals and specialists who are competent in recognized epistemic domains, including but not limited to the domains of natural science, social science and engineering. Glimell 2004;Goorden et al 2008;Guston 2008;Laurent 2010;Macnaughten et al 2005;Owen and Goldberg 2010;Rip 2009;Rogers-Hayden et al 2007;ShelleyEgan 2011;Stegmaier 2009). …”

Section: Science Policies For Public Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial Overview

Fisher

2011

Sci Eng Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science policy mandates across the industrialized world insinuate more active roles for publics, their earlier participation in policy decisions, and expanded notions of science and technology governance. In response to these policies, engaged scholars in science studies have sought to design and conduct exercises aimed at better attuning science to its public contexts. As demand increases for innovative and potentially democratic forms of public engagement with science and technology, so also do the prospects for insights from science studies to contribute to policy agendas and institutional capabilities. This collection brings together an international set of scholars in science, technology and society who inquire into the meaning, efficacy and responsibility of engaged science studies scholarship as a public matter.Keywords Public engagement Á Responsible innovation Á Integration Á Engaged scholarship Á Science and technology studies Á Science and technology policy A Doubly Transformative AgendaAs governments around the world invest in new and emerging forms of science and technology, often adorning their agendas with the language and imagery of profound social transformation, many are also recasting the means by which they publicly reckon with the social and ethical aspects of these policy decisions. Nestled alongside high-level program goals and routine funding procedures for nanotechnology, biotechnology and other arenas of strategic interest, sit provisions for enhancing the participation of publics and for broadening the practices of experts in both knowledge making and decision making. Unlike established policy models,

show abstract

“…We use the case of nanotechnology, or more precisely NSE, 1 a policy focus in which economic rationales arguably under-serve public and social values and one characterized by multiple, competing criteria and stakeholders (Guston and Sarewitz 2002). This situation, accompanied by widespread ''hype'' related to NSE (Berube 2005), ambivalence about science policy priorities (Goorden et al 2008) and rapidly emerging nanotechnologies (PEN 2010) provides an opportunity for prospective research to clarify the baseline of non-economic values that appear to animate major investments in NSEwhile adjustments are still possible and before outcomes are known (Sarewitz and Woodhouse 2003). Considering that NSE policy is a moving target, with a churn of competing policy aspirations, innovation objectives and implementation strategies pursued by a diverse set of research and technology performers, some means of public value mapping (PVM) 2 would undoubtedly be useful, if only one could identify an effective approach to doing so (Bozeman 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The public value of nanotechnology?

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science and innovation policy (SIP) is typically justified in terms of public values while SIP program assessments are typically limited to economic terms that imperfectly take into account these values. The study of public values through public value mapping (PVM) lacks widely-accepted methods for systematically identifying value structures within SIP and its public policy processes, especially when there are multiple stakeholder groups. This paper advances the study of public values in SIP using nanoscale science and engineering (NSE) policy by demonstrating that quantitative analysis of value statements can provide a credible and robust basis for policy analysis. We use content analysis of over 1,000 documents with over 100,000 pages from major contributors to the NSE policy discourse to identify and analyze a wide range of public value statements. Data analysis and reduction methods reveal a multifactor structure of public values that has been consistently cited by a range of actors in an NSE research policy network.

show abstract

Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow’s Society: A Case for Reflective Action Research in Flanders, Belgium

Cited by 15 publications

References 6 publications

Lose One Another ... and Find One Another in Nanospace. ‘Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow’s Society: A Case for Reflective Action Research in Flanders (NanoSoc)’

Lose One Another ... and Find One Another in Nanospace. ‘Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow’s Society: A Case for Reflective Action Research in Flanders (NanoSoc)’

Editorial Overview

The public value of nanotechnology?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About