Participatory Technology Assessment (pTA) initiatives have usually been analyzed as if they existed in a social and political vacuum. This article analyzes the linkages that occur, in both directions, between the microcosm set up by a pTA exercise and the real world outside. This dual-dynamics perspective leads to a new way of understanding the function and significance of pTA initiatives. Rather than viewing them as a means to create the ideal conditions for real public debate, they are viewed here as an additional public arena in which sociotechnical controversies are played out. This perspective is developed from the analysis of an interactive technology assessment exercise conducted by the French National Institute for Agricultural Research, on the topic of genetically modified vines.
Babusiaux, C., J.-Y. Le Déaut, D. Sicard, and J. Testart, J.2002. Rapport à la suite du débat sur les OGM et les essais au champ. Paris: Ministère de l'Environnement.
2.
Banthien, H., M. Jaspers, and A. Renner.2003. Governance of the European Research Area: The role of civic society. Berlin: IFOK.
3.
Bonneuil, C., Joly, P.-B., and Marris, C. Forthcoming. Disentrenching experiment: The construction of GM-crop field trials as a social problem in France. Science, Technology, & Human Values.
4.
Bouquet, A.2001. Court Noué, OGM et acceptabilité sociale des recherches . Progrès Agricole et Viticole118 (22): 484-486.
5.
Cambrosio, A., & Limoges, C.1991. Controversies as governing processes in technology assessment . Technology Analysis and Strategic Management3 (4): 377-96.
6.
Dryzek, J.S.2000. Discursive democracy vs liberal constitutionalism . In Democratic innovation: Deliberation, representation and association , edited by M. Saward, 66-78. London : Routledge.
7.
Grin, J., and H. van de Graaf .1996. Technology assessment as learning. Science, Technology, & Human Values21:72-99.
8.
Grin, J., H. van de Graaf, and R. Hoppe.1997. Technology assessment through interaction. A guide. Den Haag, Netherlands: Rathenau Institute.
9.
Irwin, A.2006. Coming to terms with the “new” scientific governance. Social Studies of Science36 (2): 299-320.
10.
Jasanoff, S.2005. Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
Joly, P.-B., and G. Assouline.2001. Assessing public debate and participation in technology assessment in Europe. Final report of the ADAPTA project, European Commission Contract no. Bio 4—CT 98 0318, INRA/QAP Decision, Grenoble . http://www.inra.fr/internet/Directions/SED/science-gouvernance/pub/ADAPTA/ (accessed September 24, 2007).
12.
Joly, P.-B., and C. Marris.2002. Que voulons-nous manger? Les Etats Généraux de l'Alimentation: Enseignements d'une expérience de mise en débat public des politiques alimentaires. Rapport pour la DGAL, INRA, TSV, Ivry.
13.
Joly, P.-B., C. Marris, and M.A. Hermitte.2003. A la recherche d'une “démocratie technique.”Enseignements de la Conférence Citoyenne sur les OGM en France. Nature, Science et Société 11 (1): 3-15.
14.
Joss, S., and S. Bellucci , ed. 2002. Participatory technology assessment, European perspectives. London: Centre for the Study of Democracy.
15.
Loeber, A.2003. Practical wisdom in the risk society. PhD diss ., University of Amsterdam.
16.
Marris, C., and P.-B. Joly.1999. Between consensus and citizens: Public participation in Technology Assessment in France. Science Studies12 (2): 3-32.
Rip, A., T. Misa, and J. Schot.1995. Constructive technology assessment: A new paradigm for managing technology in society. In Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment , edited by A. Rip, T. Misa, and J. Schot , 1-12. London: Pinter.
19.
Rowe, G., and L. Frewer.2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values25 (1): 3-29.
20.
Rowe, G., T. Horlick-Jones, J. Walls, and N. Pidgeon.2005. Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: Reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? Public debate about transgenic crops. Public Understanding of Science10 (4): 331-52.
21.
Schot, J.W., and A. Rip.1997. The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change54:251-68.
22.
Van den Daele, W., A. Pühler, and H. Sukopp.1997. Transgenic herbicide-resistant crops. A participatory technology assessment. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.
