Recent science and technology studies have analyzed questions of nonexpert participation in science, technology, and science policy from an empirically grounded perspective. The introduction to this special issue offers a double contribution to this debate. First, it presents a summary of the state of the art and an outline of the historical emergence of the participatory question. The argument distinguishes four periods since the late nineteenth century, each with a specific relationship between expert and nonexpert knowledge ranging from a hybrid, to a politicized, to an autonomous, to a participatory relationship. Second, the introduction summarizes the contributions to this issue. Their common concern is to take the debate one step further by critically reflecting the problems and limitations of participatory practices. The contributions point out the need for contextualizing the participatory question within the wider social, economic, and political circumstances in which participatory science and technology is set.
Bannister, R.C.2003. Sociology. In The Cambridge history of science, volume 7: The modern social sciences, ed. T. M. Porter and D. Ross, 329-53. Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Beck, U.1974. Objektivität und Normativität/Die Theorie-Praxis-Debatte in der modernen deutschen und amerikanischen Soziologie. Reinbek/Hamburg: Rowohlt.
3.
Bonneuil, C.2000. Development as experiment: Science and state building in late colonial and postcolonial Africa, 1930-1970. Osiris15:1501-20.
4.
————. 2002. The manufacture of species: Kew Gardens, the empire and the standardisation of taxonomic practices in late 19th century botany. In Instruments, travel and science: Itineraries of precision from the 17th to the 20th century, ed. M. N. Bourguet , C. Licoppe and O. Sibum, 189-215. London: Routledge.
5.
————. 2004. Les transformations des rapports entre sciences et société en France depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale: un essai de synthès. In Actes du colloque Sciences, Médias et Société, École normale supérieure, Lettres et Sciences humaines, Lyon 15, 16, 17 juin 2004, ed. J. Le Marec and I. Babou, 15-40. Paris: ENS. http://sciences-medias.ens-lsh.fr/IMG/pdf/actes.pdf (accessed September 26, 2007).
6.
Braun, D.1997. Die politische Steuerung der Wissenschaft. Ein Beitrag zum `kooperativen' Staat. Frankfurt/Main: Campus.
7.
Braun, D.2003. Lasting tensions in research policy-making—a delegation problem. Science and Public Policy30 (5): 309-21.
8.
Burchardt, L.1990. Die Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft bei Kriegsbeginn. In Forschung im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Gesellschaft: Geschichte und Struktur der Kaiser-Wilhelm-/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, ed. R. Vierhaus and B. vom Brocke , 163-96. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt.
9.
Callon, M., and F. Muniesa.2005. Economic markets as calculative collective devices. Organization Studies26 (8): 1229-50.
10.
Conrad, J., ed. 1983. Gesellschaft, Technik und Risikopolitik. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
11.
Cooter, R., and S. Pumphrey.1994. Separate spheres and public places: Reflections on the history of science popularization and science in popular culture. History of Science23:237-67.
12.
Drayton, R.2000. Nature's government: Science, imperial Britain, and the `improvement' of the world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
Elzinga, A., and A. Jamison.1995. Changing policy agendas in science and technology. In Handbook of science and technology studies, ed. S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch, 572-97. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
Epstein, S.1996. Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
15.
Epstein, S.2007. Inclusion: The politics of difference in medical research . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
Feldman, G.1990. The private support of science in Germany, 1900-1933. In Formen nichtstaatlicher Wissenschaftsförderung im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich (Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Beiheft 88), ed. R. vom Bruch and R. A. Müller, 87-111. Stuttgart : Franz Steiner Verlag.
17.
Fiorino, D.J.1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15 (2): 226-43.
18.
Grimmer-Solem, E.2003. The rise of historical economics and social reform in Germany 1864-1894. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
19.
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.
20.
————. 2000. Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Guston, D.H., and D. Sarewitz.2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Culture24:93-109.
22.
Irwin, A., and B. Wynne, eds. 1995. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Jasanoff, S.2003. Technologies of humility: Citizens participation in governing science. Minerva41 (3): 223-44.
24.
————. 2005. Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
Johnson, J.A.1990. The Kaiser's chemists. Science and modernization in imperial Germany. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
26.
Joss, S., ed. 1999. Special issue on public participation in science and technology. Science and Public Policy26 (5).
27.
Joss, S., and J. Durant , eds. 1995. Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.
28.
Kelly, S.E.2003. Public bioethics and publics: Consensus, boundaries, and participation in biomedical science policy. Science, Technology, & Human Values28 (3): 339-64.
29.
Kleinman, D. L., ed. 2000a. Science, technology, and democracy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
30.
————. 2000b. Introduction. In Science, technology, and democracy, ed. D. L. Kleinman, 1-12. Albany: State University of New York Press.
31.
————. 2000c. Democratizations of science and technology. In Science, technology, and democracy, ed. D. L. Kleinman. 139-66. Albany : State University of New York Press.
32.
Krohn, W., and J. Weyer.1994. Society as a laboratory: The social risks of experimental research. Science and Public Policy21 (3): 173-83.
33.
Kuznick, P.J.1987. Beyond the laboratory: Scientists as political activists in 1930s America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
Laird, F.N.1993. Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Science, Technology, & Human Values18 (3): 341-61.
35.
Latour, B.2004. Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
Lengwiler, M.2006. Risikopolitik im Sozialstaat. Die schweizerische Unfallversicherung 1870-1970. Cologne: Böhlau Verlag .
37.
Levidow, L., and C. Marris.2001. Science and governance in Europe: Lessons from the case of agbiotech. Science and Public Policy, 28 (5): 345-60.
38.
Marks, H.M.1997. The progress of experiment: Science and therapeutic reform in the United States 1900-1990. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39.
Mazmanian, D.1976. Participatory democracy in a federal agency. In Water politics and public involvement, ed. J. Pierce and H. Doerksen.Ann Arbor, MI: Science Publishers.
40.
Mazur, A.1981. The dynamics of technical controversy. Washington DC: Communications Press.
41.
Miller, C.A.2005. New civic epistemologies of quantification: Making sense of indicators of local and global sustainability. Science, Technology, & Human Values30 (3): 403-32.
42.
Nelkin, D.1977. Technological decisions and democracy: European experiments in public participation. London: Sage.
43.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons.2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
44.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons.2003. “Mode 2” revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva41 (3): 179-94.
45.
Pestre, D.2003. Regimes of knowledge production in society: Towards a more political and social reading. Minerva41 (3): 245-61.
46.
Picon, A.2003. Utopian socialism and social science. In The Cambridge history of science, volume 7: The modern social sciences, ed. T. M. Porter and D. Ross, 71-82. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47.
Porter, T.M.2003. Statistics and statistical methods. In The Cambridge history of science, volume 7: The modern social sciences, ed. T. M. Porter and D. Ross, 238-50. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48.
Rabeharisoa, V., and M. Callon.1999. Le pouvoir des malades. L'Association française contre les myopathies et la recherche. Paris : Les Presses de l'Ecole des Mines.
49.
Ravetz, J., and Westfall, R.S.1981. Marxism and the history of science. Isis72 (3): 393-405.
50.
Renn, O., T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, eds. 1995. Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Boston: Kluwer.
51.
Rowe, G., and L.J. Frewer.2004. Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values29 (4): 512-56.
52.
Schroeder-Gudehus, B.1972. The argument for the self-government and public support of science in Weimar Germany. Minerva10 (4): 537-70.
53.
Secord, J.2000. Victorian sensation: The extraordinary publication, reception and secret authorship of `Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation.'Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54.
Shapin, S.1990. Science and the public. In Companion to the history of modern science, ed. R. C. Olby et al., 990-1007. London and New York: Routledge.
55.
Shinn, T., and R. Whitley , eds. 1985. Expository science: Forms and functions of popularization (Sociology of the SciencesYearbook IX). Dordrecht: Kluwer .
56.
Wagner, P.2003. The uses of the social sciences. In The Cambridge history of science, volume 7: The modern social sciences, ed. T. M. Porter and D. Ross, 537-52. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
57.
Weber, M.1988. Die “Objektivität” sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis. In Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, M. Weber, 146-214. Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany: Mohr.
58.
Wynne, B.2002. Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: Reflexivity inside out? Current Sociology50 (3): 459-77.
