This article examines the debate about the normative relevance of social constructivism, arguing that the criticisms of Winner, Radder, and others are fundamentally accurate. The article argues that a combination of Radder's notion of nonlocal values and Martin's concern for deliberative interventions may offer a theoretical exit from the normative irrelevance that marks constructivism. The article goes on to suggest that theoretical and praxeological developments in two other literatures, participatory public policy analysis and deliberative democracy, may provide fruitful initiatives for constructivist scholars eager to address normative concerns. The article next reviews a range of problems facing deliberative and participatory practices and suggests ways in which constructivist insights might help to advance deliberative theory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aibar, E.1996. The evaluative relevance of social studies of technology . Society for Philosophy and Technology1 (3/4). Available from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v1_n3n4/Aibar.html .
2.
Andersen, I.-E., and B. Jæger.1999. Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: Towards more democratic decision-making. Science and Public Policy26 (5): 331-40.
3.
Archibugi, D., D. Held , and M. Köhler, eds. 1998. Re-imagining political community: Studies in cosmopolitan democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
4.
Armour, A.1995. The citizens' jury model of public participation: A critical evaluation. In Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse, edited by O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, 175-88. Boston : Kluwer Academic.
5.
Barber, B.R.1995. Jihad vs. McWorld: How the planet is both falling apart and coming together and what this means for democracy. New York: Times Books.
6.
Benhabib, S., ed. 1996. Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
Bijker, W.E.1993. Do not despair: There is life after constructivism . Science, Technology, & Human Values18 (1): 113-38.
8.
---. 1995. Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
---. 1999. Democratization of technology, who are the experts? Unpublished manuscript.
10.
Bijker, W.E., and K. Bijsterveld.2000. Women walking through plans: Technology, democracy, and gender identity. Technology and Culture41 (3): 485-515.
11.
Bohman, J.1996. Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
12.
---. 1998. Survey article: The coming of age of deliberative democracy . Journal of Political Philosophy6 (4): 400-25.
13.
Button, M., and K. Mattson.1999. Deliberative democracy in practice: Challenges and prospects for civic deliberation. Polity31 (4): 609-37.
14.
Cohen, J., and J. Rogers.1983. On democracy: Toward a transformation of American society. New York: Penguin.
15.
Cohen, J., and C. Sabel.1997. Directly-deliberative polyarchy. European Law Journal3 (4): 313-42.
16.
Crosby, N.1995. Citizens juries: One solution for difficult environmental questions. In Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse, edited by O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, 157-74. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
17.
Dahl, R.A.1956. A preface to democratic theory. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
18.
---. 1967. Pluralist democracy in the United States: Conflict and consent. Chicago: Rand McNally.
19.
---. 1982. Dilemmas of pluralist democracy: Autonomy vs. control . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
20.
Davidow, W.H., and M.S. Malone.1992. The virtual corporation: Structuring and revitalizing the corporation for the 21st century. New York: HarperCollins.
21.
deLeon, P.1990. Participatory policy analysis: Prescriptions and precautions . Asian Journal of Public Administration12:29-54.
22.
---. 1997. Democracy and the policy science. Albany: State University of New York Press.
23.
Doble, J.1995. Public opinion about issues characterized by technological complexity and scientific uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science4:95-118.
24.
Dryzek, J.S.1990. Discursive democracy: Politics, policy and political science . New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
---. 1996. Democracy in capitalist times: Ideals, limits, and struggles . New York: Oxford University Press .
26.
Durant, J.1999. Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Science and Public Policy26 (5): 313-20.
27.
Dürrenberger, G.1999. Integrated assessment focus groups: Bridging the gap between science and policy? Science and Public Policy26 (5): 341-50.
28.
Elster, J., ed. 1998. Deliberative democracy. Cambridge studies in the theory of democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Falk, R.1999. Predatory globalization: A critique. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
30.
Fischer, F.1993. Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sciences26:165-87.
31.
---. 1999. Technological deliberation in a democratic society: The case for participatory inquiry. Science and Public Policy26 (5): 294-302.
32.
Fischer, F., and H. Forester , eds. 1993. The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
33.
Fishkin, J.S.1991. Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
34.
---. 1995. The voice of the people: Public opinion and democracy . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35.
Fuller, S.1988. Social epistemology. Bloomington : Indiana University Press.
36.
Giere, R.N.1993. Science and technology studies: Prospects for an enlightened postmodern synthesis. Science, Technology, & Human Values18 (1): 102-12.
37.
Gilbert, A.1999. Must global politics constrain democracy? Great-power realms, democratic peace, and democratic internationalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
Grint, K., and S. Woolgar.1997. The machine at work: Technology, work and organization. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
39.
Guston, D.H.1999. Evaluating the first U.S. consensus conference: The impact of the citizens panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy . Science, Technology, & Human Values24 (4): 451-82.
40.
Gutmann, A., and D. Thompson.1996. Democracy and disagreement: Why moral conflict cannot be avoided in politics, and what should be done about it. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
41.
Held, D.1995. Democracy and the global order: From the modern state to cosmopolitan governance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
42.
---. 1998. Democracy and globalization. In Re-imagining political community: Studies in cosmopolitan democracy, edited by D. Archibugi, D. Held , and M. Köhler, 11-27. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
43.
Hennen, L.1999. Participatory technology assessment: A response to technical modernity? Science and Public Policy26 (5): 303-12.
44.
Hoffman, T.1998. Rationality reconceived: The mass electorate and democratic theory. Critical Review12 (4): 459-80.
45.
Hörning, G.1999. Citizens' panels as a form of deliberative technology assessment. Science and Public Policy26 (5): 351-60.
46.
Hughes, T.P.1987. The evolution of large technological systems. In The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology, edited by W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, and T. J. Pinch, 51-82. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
47.
Huntington, S.P.1996. The clash of civilizations: Remaking of world order . New York: Touch-stone Books.
48.
Joerges, B.1999. Do politics have artefacts? Social Studies of Science29 (3): 411-31.
49.
Joss, S., and A. Brownlea.1999. Considering the concept of procedural justice for public policy-and decision-making in science and technology. Science and Public Policy26 (5): 321-30.
50.
Joss, S., and J. Durant , eds. 1995a. Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.
51.
---. 1995b. The U.K. national consensus conference on plant biotechnology . Public Understanding of Science4:195-204.
52.
Lindblom, C.E.1959. The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review14:79-88.
53.
---. 1965. The intelligence of democracy. New York: Free Press.
54.
Lowrance, W.W.1976. Of acceptable risk: Science and the determination of safety . Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann .
55.
Macedo, S.1999. Introduction. In Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement, edited by S. Macedo, 3-16. New York: Oxford University Press.
56.
Martin, B.1996. Sticking a needle into science: The case of polio vaccines and the origin of AIDS. Social Studies of Science26 (2): 245-76.
57.
Mayer, I.1997. Debating technologies: A methodological contribution to the design and evaluation of participatory policy analysis. Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University Press .
58.
Mayer, I., J. de Vries, and J. Geuris.1995. An evaluation of the effects of participation in a consensus conference. In Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe, edited by S. Joss and J. Durant, 109-24. London : Science Museum.
59.
Miller, H.I.2000. Combating pathological opposition to gene splicing . Chronicle of Higher Education46:B8.
60.
Morone, J.G., and E.J. Woodhouse.1986. Averting catastrophe: Strategies for regulating risky technologies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
61.
Nelkin, D., ed. 1985. The language of risk. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage .
62.
Nino, C.S.1996. The constitution of deliberative democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
63.
Pelletier, D., V. Kraak, C. McCullum, U. Uusitalo, and R. Rich.1999. The shaping of collective values through deliberative democracy: An empirical study from New York's North Country. Policy Sciences32:103-31.
64.
Piller, C.1991. The fail-safe society: Community defiance and the end of American technological optimism. New York: Basic Books.
65.
Radder, H.1996. In and about the world: Philosophical studies of science and technology. Albany: State University of New York Press.
66.
Rawls, J.1999. The idea of public reason revisited. In John Rawls: Collected papers, edited by S. Freeman, 573-615. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
67.
Rehg, W., and J. Bohman.1996. Survey article: Discourse and democracy: The formal and informal bases of legitimacy in Habermas' Faktizität und Geltung . Journal of Political Philosophy4 (1): 79-99.
68.
Renn, O., T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, eds. 1995. Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Boston: Kluwer Academic .
69.
Richards, Evelleen, and M. Ashmore.1996. More sauce please! The politics of SSK: Neutrality, commitment and beyond. Social Studies of Science26 (2): 219-28.
70.
Rowe, G., and L.J. Frewer.2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values25 (1): 3-29.
71.
Sclove, R.E.1995. Democracy and technology. The Conduct of Science Series. New York: Guilford.
72.
---. 1999. Democratic politics of technology: The missing half: Using democratic criteria in participatory technology decisions. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved 20 September 1999 from http://www.loka.org/idt/intro.htm.
73.
Scott, P., E. Richards, and B. Martin.1990. Captives of controversy: The myth of the neutral social researcher in contemporary scientific controversies. Science, Technology, & Human Values15 (4): 474-94.
74.
Segal, H.H.1989. Corporate makeover: The reshaping of the American economy . New York: Viking.
75.
Shrader-Frechette, K.S.1991. Risk and rationality: Philosophical foundations for populist reforms. Berkeley: University of California Press.
76.
Smith, G., and C. Wales.1999. The theory and practice of citizens' juries. Policy & Politics27 (3): 295-308.
77.
Somin, I.1998. Voter ignorance and the democratic ideal. Critical Review12 (4): 413-58.
78.
Steuerle, C.E., E.M. Gramlich, H. Heclo, and D.S. Nightingale .1998. The government we deserve: Responsive democracy and changing expectations. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
79.
Trigg, R., S. I. Anderson , and E. Dykstra-Erickson, eds. 1994. PDC '94: Proceedings of the participatory design conference (27-28 October). Chapel Hill, NC: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.
80.
Wildavsky, A.1988. Searching for safety. New Brunswick, CT: Transaction Books.
81.
Winner, L.1980. Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus109:121-36.
82.
---. 1992. Citizen virtues in a technological order. In Humanistic perspectives on technology, development and environment, edited by F. Sejersted and I. Moser, 121-48. TMV report series no. 3. Oslo, Norway: Centre for Technology and Culture, University of Oslo.
83.
---. 1993. Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values18 (3): 362-78.
84.
Woodhouse, E.J.1987. Decision theory and the governance of technology . Teaching Political Science: Politics in Perspective14 (4): 171-77.
85.
---. 1988. Sophisticated trial-and-error in decision making about risk. In Technology and politics, edited by M. E. Kraft and N. J. Vig, 208-26. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
86.
Woolgar, S.1991. The turn to technology in the social studies of science . Science, Technology, & Human Values16 (1): 20-50.
87.
---. 1999. Do artefacts have ambivalence? Moses' bridges, Winner's bridges and other urban legends in S&TS. Social Studies of Science29 (3): 433-49.
88.
Woolgar, S., and K. Grint.1996. A further decisive refutation of the assumption that political action depends on the "truth" and a suggestion that we need to go beyond this level of debate-Reply. Science, Technology, & Human Values21 (3): 354-57.
89.
Young, I.M.1997. Difference as a resource for democratic communication . In Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics , edited by J. Bohman and W. Rehg, 383-406. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
