Issue 1
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Recent Submissions
Item Science, Technology & Innovation Studies Vol. 5 (2009), No 1 (September)(Technische Universität Dortmund, 2009-09) Gisler, Priska; Schicktanz, SilkeItem A helping hand or a servant discipline?(Technische Universität Dortmund, 2009) Burchell, KevinIn the UK, a diverse network of actors has emerged around the delivery of government-sponsored processes of public participation in science and technology. Although this network includes social scientists, the relationship between social science and participatory policy-making remains an ambiguous one. My objective in this paper is to reflect in an exploratory manner on non-academic perspectives of the roles of social science in public participation. In particular, I draw attention to the contrasting conceptions of the policy relevant roles of social science that appear to prevail among academic social scientists (a discipline in which the analysis and critique of modes of thought and action are valued highly) and the non-academic actors (a discipline that is valued for its instrumental, problem-oriented potential). Further, I explore the ways in which the non-academic conception of social science as an instrumental discipline might be interpreted; for example, as merely providing a helping hand or, more pointedly, as a servant discipline to the objectives and interests of others. I conclude with an exploratory discussion of the challenges and opportunities that this contrast presents for social scientists. Further, I make the case that social scientists should clearly advocate the policy relevance and value of analysis and critique.Item Mediating online DNA-Dialogues(Technische Universität Dortmund, 2009) Radstake, Maud; Nelis, Annemiek; Heuvel-Vromans, Eefje van den; Dortmans, KoenIn a pilot project called The DNA-Dialogues online discussion boards of popular magazines featured as sites for public dialogue on genomics-related issues. As organizers and mediators of those online discussions, we experienced problems that have hardly been attended to by dialogue practitioners nor by social scientists who study and criticize public engagement activities. We illustrate those problems with examples from an online discussion on the storage and use of neonatal screening blood. We draw two lessons. First, practitioners as well as analysts tend to consider dialogues as public engagement activities, whereas we learned that the engagement of experts is just as difficult and equally crucial. Second, the role played by organizers and moderators of dialogue events is often left implicit, whereas we actively contributed to framing the issue at stake in the discussion. As an alternative for the notion of dialogue as a form of public engagement, we propose to do dialogue as a form of interventionist social science research. We instigate an outline of what such interventionist dialogue research would involve, and argue that it requires an integration of the roles of dialogue practioner and critical analyst.Item Organizer, observer and participant(Technische Universität Dortmund, 2009) Abels, GabrielePublic participation has become an important issue in science and technology studies as well as in politics. Procedures creating such multi-actor spaces of public participation are usually discussed under the label "participatory technology assessment" (pTA). PTA is considered to be a possible and promising way to foster direct interaction between members of the general public (lay people), organized interest groups, scientific experts, and sometimes also policy makers. Over the last ten years pTA has been utilized in many European countries, but also elsewhere in the world. However, there are vast differences regarding participatory methods. Abels and Bora propose a typology differentiating among seven different types of procedures. These seven types adopt divergent approaches with regard to the participants involved (who), the ways and means of participation (how) and the supposed functions of public participation (what for). The paper investigates the role social scientists play in pTA. It argues that social scientists can act in three different roles: as organizers of pTA, as scientific observers and as participants. The last role can take two different directions. Social scientists can be involved in pTA as "regular" scientific experts, or they can serve as "translators" in the complicated communication among social groups. It is this role as translator that is considered to be most innovative and worth exploring in the theory and praxis of pTA.Item Introduction: Ironists, reformers, or rebels?(Technische Universität Dortmund, 2009) Gisler, Priska; Schicktanz, SilkePublic engagement has become increasingly important within the sphere of science policy making. A broad range of discursive experiments and participatory methods involving citizens, consumers, and other key stakeholders are frequently used to consult the public about their opinion of new developments in science and technology. This special issue of STI-Studies aims at addressing the role(s) of scholars in this important field. Having personally participated in a variety of public engagement exercises and public discourse experiments, and having carefully considered how we (as social scientists) fit within these exercises, we have come to realise that our roles are heterogeneous, complex and ambiguous. Social scientists complete a number of tasks in participatory science policy making: For example, they initiate public and/or stake holder discourses by adopting or even developing participatory and discursive methods. They organise and moderate various dialogues (for the case of Germany see e.g. Renn 1999). They oversee various public discourse events and evaluate the process (for the case of Switzerland see e.g. Gisler 2000-2003). They analyse and comment on the impact of participatory methods, drawing on sociological and political theories (e.g. Maasen/Merz, 2006). In brief, social scientists play a variety of formal roles, serving as organisers, moderators, evaluators, commentators and others. However, these formal descriptions are rigid and do not fully convey the underlying social, moral and political dimensions of these roles. Furthermore, there is some ambivalence between the formal functions and the socio-moral-political roles taken on by social scientists. This ambivalence arises due to a conflict between the form and content of these roles as well as the fact that multiple roles may coincide with each other. For a better understanding of the ongoing debate on participatory science policy making, it is necessary to reflect upon this ambivalence because it affects social scientists accomplishments in this important field. Our contribution to the recent debate is a kind of self-reflexive turn: We would like to carefully consider the role of the social sciences and the role(s) social scientists expect and are expected to play in the field of participatory science policy making. Therefore, in this introduction, we raise the following questions from a theoretical point of view: How do the social sciences influence participatory policy procedures? What kind of explicit and/or implicit role(s) do social scientists play in the construction of political procedures and public debates? In an effort to address these questions, we will, first, argue how participatory policy making is linked to the social sciences and its methodologies (chapter 1). Second, we will contextualize the development of participatory policy making within the methodological framework of the social sciences and the broader historical shift towards the democratization of society (chapter 2). Third, we will assess some of the roles social scientists have come to play in participatory policy making. We suggest a way of rethinking such roles by unmasking their often rather implicit social, political and moral premises and by critically reflecting on the idea that there is only a formal role played by the social sciences. This way Canadian philosopher Ian Hacking (1999). We will highlight some of the complexities and moralities linked to the concrete roles the social sciences play, especially in the sphere of science and politics. This will be discussed in more detail in the case studies and articles assembled in this issue (chapter 3). Fourth, and finally, we would like to consider some looping effects that the deconstruction of social scientific roles may have on participatory policy making on a more general level (chapter 4). The social sciences, as a collection of disciplines, could eventually contribute more to participatory policy making by reflecting on its current role(s) and by revising the methods that are applied to specific scientific fields. In doing so, the social sciences may gain considerable insight into how they function as a thought collective.Item Editorial(Technische Universität Dortmund, 2009) Schulz-Schaeffer, Ingo; Werle, Raymund; Weyer, Johannes