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

作者: Jeroen Van Bouwel , Michiel Van Oudheusden

DOI: 10.1080/02691728.2017.1352624

关键词: DeliberationDemocracyStrengths and weaknessesEpistemologyPolitical philosophyAgonismCitizen journalismSociologyAppealValuation (finance)PhilosophyGeneral Social Sciences

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

参考文章(61)
Miriam Solomon, Group Judgment and the Medical Consensus Conference Philosophy of Medicine. pp. 239- 254 ,(2011) , 10.1016/B978-0-444-51787-6.50009-X
P. M. Macnaghten, M. B. Kearnes, J. Wilsdon, Governing at the Nanoscale: People, Policies and Emerging Technologies ,(2006)
Hayley Stevenson, John S. Dryzek, Democratizing Global Climate Governance ,(2014)
AS Balmer, Paul Martin, Synthetic Biology: Social and Ethical Challenges London: BBSRC ; 2008.. ,(2008)
Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox ,(2000)
Esther Turnhout, Severine Van Bommel, Noelle Aarts, How participation creates citizens: participatory governance as performative practice. Ecology and Society. ,vol. 15, pp. 26- 41 ,(2010) , 10.5751/ES-03701-150426
Michiel van Oudheusden, Hannes De Zutter, Contesting Co-Inquiry: "Noncommunicative" Discourse in a Flemish Participatory Technology Assessment Science Communication. ,vol. 34, pp. 84- 114 ,(2012) , 10.1177/1075547011408926