Questioning ‘Participation’: A Critical Appraisal of its Conceptualization in a Flemish Participatory Technology Assessment

Abstract

This article draws attention to struggles inherent in discourse about the meaning of participation in a Flemish participatory technology assessment (pTA) on nanotechnologies. It explores how, at the project's outset, key actors (e.g., nanotechnologists and pTA researchers) frame elements of the process like 'the public' and draw on interpretive repertoires to fit their perspective. The examples call into question normative commitments to cooperation, consensus building, and common action that conventionally guide pTA approaches. It is argued that pTA itself must reflect an awareness of competing interests and perspectives inherent in the discourse associated with the meaning of 'participation' if it is to incite action beyond vested interests and ensure genuine mutual learning.

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

“…However, like deliberative TA, the way RI is theorized to occur is problematic. Proponents of deliberation and RI repeatedly fail to consider their own politics and fail to present deliberation as a political activity, imbued as it is with ongoing processes of contestation and subversion that do not necessarily lead toward mutually gratifying outcomes (Van Oudheusden 2011b). The rather naive conception of deliberation as a constructive, mutually responsive enterprise that harmonizes scientific and social interests and values needs to be made more political if RI is to make headway as a strategic orientation and durable policy commitment in the years to come.…”

Taking Our Own Medicine: On an Experiment in Science Communication

“…Rather than take the translation of Saturday morning shoppers into installation-participators for granted (now that it has happened) we must acknowledge that it might not have been the case. This also goes for similar engagement initiatives (e.g., Schuurbiers 2011;Selin 2011;van Oudheusden 2011): as researchers, we cannot take engagement for granted. Rather, we must understand each specific case in terms of what was learned-both on behalf of the groups engaged, but also on behalf of the research communicators and the involved community of scientists.…”

Does the engagement between science and society pose risks for intelligent scientific practice?

“…The need for rational argument and collaborative participation is therefore not necessarily universally shared by participants in the reality of science-society engagement. Personal expression of power, modes of communication and structural cultural and other constricting factors may indeed play a significant role (Van Oudheusden, 2011).…”

“…These engagements have become commonplace in many parts of the developed world, for example the USA (Kleinman, 1998), the UK (Te Kulve and Rip, 2011), Belgium (Van Oudheusden, 2011), and the Netherlands (Petersen et al, 2011). The engagements have mainly centred on contentious scientific and technological issues, such as nanotechnology (Swierstra et al, 2011), environmental protection (Peterson et al, 2011, recombinant DNA, epidemiology and AIDS treatment (Kleinman, 1998), and energy policy and micro-electronics (Van Est, 2008).…”