Discursive deference in the governance of science and technology is rebalancing from expert analysis toward participatory deliberation. Linear, scientistic conceptions of innovation are giving ground to more plural, socially situated understandings. Yet, growing recognition of social agency in technology choice is countered by persistently deterministic notions of technological progress. This article addresses this increasingly stark disjuncture. Distinguishing between “appraisal” and “commitment” in technology choice, it highlights contrasting implications of normative, instrumental, and substantive imperatives in appraisal. Focusing on the role of power, it identifies key commonalities transcending the analysis/participation dichotomy. Each is equally susceptible to instrumental framing for variously weak and strong forms of justification. To address the disjuncture, it is concluded that greater appreciation is required—in both analytic and participatory appraisal—to facilitating the opening up (rather than the closing down) of governance commitments on science and technology.
Adams, R.2002. City diary. Guardian, December 13, 2002.
2.
Aoki, M.1996. An evolutionary parable of the gains from international organizational diversity. In The mosaic of economic growth , edited by R. Landau, T. Taylor, and G. Wright , 247-80. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press .
3.
Arthur, W.1989. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Economic Journal99:116-31.
4.
Baldwin, T., P. Webster, and V. Elliott.2004. Blair grasps the nettle on GM cropsTimes, March 5, 2004. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-1027089,00.html (accessed August 22, 2006).
5.
Barry, A.2001. Political machines: Governing a technological society . London: Athlone.
6.
BBC.1985. Edge of darkness, April 11—September 12, 1985. http://www.screenonline.org.uk/tv/id/473217/index.html (accessed December 20, 2007).
7.
———. 2006. BBC news: The nuclear debate, July 2006.
8.
———. 2007. BBC news: Blair defiant over nuclear plans, February 15, 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6366725.stm (accessed December 20, 2007).
9.
Beckett, M.2002. Announcement of the establishing of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, 29 July 2002. http://www.corwm.org.uk/content-261 (accessed April 27, 2007).
10.
Bijker, W.B.1995. Of bicycles, Bakelite and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
11.
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.1994. UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology1994. London: National Centre for Biotechnology Education.
12.
Blair, T.2003. Written answers to questions. Hansard , November 10, 2003, col. 14W. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo031110/text/31110w04.htm#31110w04.html_spmin1 (accessed December 20, 2007).
13.
———. 2005. Announcement of the government energy review in speech at the Confederation of British Industry, November 29, 2005 . http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page8606.asp (accessed December 20, 2007).
14.
———. 2006. Speech concerning a new Anglo-French agreement on the sharing of nuclear expertise, Paris, June 9, 2006. http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?showPage=article&ID=3237 (accessed December 20, 2007).
15.
Bohmann, J.1996. Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
16.
Bourdieu, P.1996. The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power . Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
17.
Broers, A.2005. The triumph of technology. BBC Reith Lectures 2005. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2005/ (accessed December 20, 2007).
18.
Brown, G.2004. Speech delivered by the UK Chancellor to UK government conference on advancing enterprise, London, January 26, 2004. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/documents/enterprise_and_productivity/advancingenterprise/ent_advent05_index.cfm (accessed December 20, 2007).
19.
Brown, N., and M. Michael.2002. From authority to authenticity: The changing governance of biotechnology. Health, Risk & Society4:259-72.
20.
Brown W.2002. Inclusive governance practices in nonprofit organizations and implications for practice. Nonprofit Management and Leadership12:369-85.
21.
Burgess, J., A. Stirling, J. Clark, G. Davies, M. Eames, K. Staley, and S. Williamson.2007. Deliberative mapping: Developing an analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions . Public Understanding of Science16:299-322.
22.
Chambers, R.1983. Rural development: Putting the last first. London: Longmans.
23.
Coenen, F., D. Huitema, and L. O'Toole, Jr., eds. 1998 . Participation and the quality of environmental decision makingDordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer .
24.
Collingridge, D.1980. The social control of technology. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
25.
———. 1982. Critical decision making: A new theory of social choice . London: Pinter.
26.
———. 1983. Technology in the policy process: Controlling nuclear power. London: Pinter.
27.
Commission of the European Communities.2000 . Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle (COM(2000)1). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
28.
Council for Science and Technology.2000. Technology matters: Report on the exploitation of science and technology by UK business. London: HMSO.
29.
Crouch, C.2004. Post-democracy. London: Polity.
30.
David, P.1985. Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review75:332-37.
31.
Davies, G., J. Burgess, M. Eames, S. Mayer, K. Staley, A. Stirling, and S. Williamson.2003. Deliberative mapping: Appraising options for addressing `the kidney gap.' Final report to Wellcome Trust. http://www.deliberative-mapping.org/ (accessed April 15, 2005).
32.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).2003. GM nation: Findings of a public debate . London: DEFRA. http://www.gmnation.org.uk/ (accessed August 22, 2006).
33.
———. 2004. Evidence and innovation: Defra's needs from the sciences over the next 10 years. London: DEFRA. http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/documents/forwardlook/ScienceForwardLook3rd.pdf (accessed August 22, 2006).
34.
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI).2003 . Energy white paper: Our energy future— creating a low carbon economy. London: HMSO.
35.
———. 2006. The energy challenge: Report of the UK Government Energy Review. London: DTI. http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file31890.pdf (accessed July 16, 2006).
36.
de W. Waller,D.R., J. Gibbard, P. Maryan, H. Parkinson, J. Craig, J. Perks, C. Downing, D. Forbes, A. Tipping, J. Howland, R. Woolam, M. Pooley, K. Lawson, E. Argirova, and S. Parkash for the AEA Technology Environment and Databuild.2006. Analysis of responses to the energy review consultation (DTI Pub. 06-1565). http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file31631 (accessed August 22, 2006).
37.
Dodgson, J., M. Spackman, and A. Pearman for the DTLR. 2001. Multi-criteria analysis: A manual. London: Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, HMSO.
38.
Dryzek, J.1990. Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39.
———. 2002. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
40.
Dryzek, J., and S. Niemeyer.2003. Pluralism and consensus in political deliberation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, August.
41.
Econexus, the Five Year Freeze, Friends of the Earth, GeneWatch UK, Greenpeace, the Soil Association, and Michael Antoniou. 2003. Comments on GM Science Review. Derby: Genewatch.
42.
Elzinga A., and A. Jamison.1995. Changing policy agendas in science and technology. In Handbook of science and technology studies , edited by S. Jasanoff, G. Makle, J. Petersen , and T. Pinch, 572-97. London : Sage.
43.
Engineering and Physical Science Research Council.2006. Keeping the nuclear option open. Swindon : Engineering and Physical Science Research Council . http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/ResearchFunding/Programmes/Energy/Funding/TSEC/KeepingTheNuclearOptionOpen.htm (accessed December 20, 2007).
44.
Environmental Audit Committee.2005. Keeping the lights on: Nuclear, renewables, and climate change (Sixth Report, Session 2005-6, HC 584). London: HMSO. http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/environmental_audit_committee/eac_18_04_06.cfm (accessed December 20, 2007).
45.
European Environment Agency.2001. Late lesson from early warnings: The precautionary principle 1898-2000. Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environment Agency.
46.
European Science and Technology Observatory.1999. On science and precaution in the management of technological risk (EUR19056 EN)Sevilla, Spain: Insitute for Prospective Technology Studies. ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/EURdoc/eur19056en.pdf (accessed April 15, 2005).
47.
Feenberg, A.2002. Transforming technology: A critical theory revisited. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
48.
Fiorino, D.1989. Environmental risk and democratic process: A critical review. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law14:501-47.
49.
Fischer, F.1990. Technocracy and the politics of expertise. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
50.
Flyvbjerg, B.1998. Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
51.
Foucault, M.1980. Power/knowledge: Selected interviews & other writings 1972-1977, edited by C. Gordon.New York: Pantheon.
52.
Fransella, F., R. Bell, and D. Bannister.2004. A manual for repertory grid technique . 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
53.
Giddens, A.1979. Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. London: Macmillan.
54.
———. 1986. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
55.
Gieryn, T.1995. Boundaries of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff , G. Makle, J. Petersen, and T. Pinch, 393-443. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
56.
GM Science Review Panel (SRP).2003. GM science review: First report. London: DTI. http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/default.htm#first (accessed April 15, 2005).
57.
———. 2004. GM science review: Second report. London: DTI. http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/default.htm#second (accessed April 15, 2005).
58.
Goffman, E.1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience . New York: Harper & Row.
59.
Goldman, A.2001. Social epistemology. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, edited by E. Zalta.Stanford, CA: Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2001/entries/epistemology-social/ (accessed April 15, 2005).
60.
Grabher, G., and D. Stark.1997. Organizing diversity: Evolutionary theory, network analysis and postsocialism. Regional Studies31:533-44.
Grove-White, R.2006. Britain's genetically modified crop controversies: The agriculture and environment biotechnology commission and the negotiation of `uncertainty.' Community Genetics9:170-77.
63.
Grove-White, R., P. Macnaghton, S. Mayer, and B. Wynne.1997. Uncertain world. Genetically modified organisms, food and public attitudes in Britain. Lancaster, UK: Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University .
64.
Grove-White, R., P. Macnaghten, and B. Wynne.2000. Wising up: The public and new technologies. Lancaster, UK: Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University.
65.
Habermas, J.1968. Toward a rational society: Student protest, science and politics. London: Heinemann .
66.
———. 1975. Legitimation crisis. Boston : Beacon.
67.
———. 1984. The philosophical discourse of modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
68.
Hajer, M.1997. The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
69.
Harrison, S., and M. Mort.1998. Which champions, which people? Public and user involvement in health care as a technology of legitimation. Social Policy and Administration32:60-70.
70.
Health and Safety Executive.2006. Discussion document on review of strategy for regulating new nuclear power station design. London: Health and Safety Executive. http://www.hse.gov.uk/PRESS/2006/e06037.htm (accessed December 20, 2007).
Holt, Mulroy & Germann Public Affairs.2003 . Reputation management. Washington, DC : Holt, Mulroy & Germann Public Affairs. http://www.hmgpa.com/reputation.htm (accessed April 15, 2005).
73.
Hood, C.2002. Managing risk and managing blame: A political science approach. In Risk, democratic citizenship and public policy , edited by A. Weale, 73-84. Oxford , UK: Oxford University/British Academy Press.
74.
Horlick-Jones, T.1996. The problem of blame. In Accident and design: Contemporary debates in risk management, edited by C. Hood and D. Jones , 34-47. London : UCL Press.
75.
Horlick-Jones, T., J. Walls, G. Rowe, N.F. Pidgeon, W. Poortinga, and T. O'Riordan.2004. A deliberative future? An independent evaluation of the GM nation? Public debate about the possible commercialisation of transgenic crops in Britain. Norwich: Understanding Risk Programme, University of East Anglia. http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/pur/gm_future_top_copy_12_feb_04.pdf (accessed April 15, 2005).
76.
Hughes, T.1983. Networks of power: Electrification in Western society 1880-1930. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
77.
Irwin, A.1995. Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge.
78.
———. 2001. Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science10:10-18.
79.
Jasanoff, S.1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
80.
———. 2005. Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
81.
----------. In the democracies of DNA: ontological uncertainty and political order in three statesNew Genetics and Society24(2), 2005, pp 139-155.
82.
Joss, S., and J. Durant.1995. Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.
83.
King, D.2005. The nuclear option isn't political expediency but scientific necessity. Guardian, December 16, 2005. http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story (accessed August 22, 2006).
84.
Kooiman, J.1993. Governance and governability: Using complexity, dynamics and diversity. In Modern governance, edited by J. Kooiman, 35-48. London: Sage.
85.
Lash, S.2001. Technological forms of life. Theory, Culture and Society18 (1): 105-20.
86.
Leach, M., I. Scoones, and B. Wynne.2005. Introduction. In Science, citizenship and globalisation, edited by M. Leach, I. Scoones, and B. Wynne, 3-14. London: Zed.
87.
Leib, E.2005. Deliberative democracy in America: A proposal for a popular branch of government. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
88.
Levidow, L.1999. Democratising technology or technologising democracy . Technology in Society20 (2): 211-26.
89.
Lukes, S.1974. Power: A radical view. London : Macmillan.
90.
Margolis, H.1996. Dealing with risk. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
91.
Mayer, S.2004. GM nation? Engaging people in real debate?Derby: Genewatch UK.
92.
McDowell, W., and M. Eames.2006. Towards a sustainable hydrogen economy: A multi-criteria mapping of the UKSHEC hydrogen futures—full report . London: Policy Studies Institute .
93.
McKeown, B., and D. Thomas.1988. Q methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
94.
Misa, T., and A. Brey, eds. 2003. Modernity and technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
95.
Misztal, B.1996. Trust in modern societies. Cambridge , UK: Polity.
96.
Mokyr, J.1992. Cardwell's law and the political economy of technological progress. Research Policy23:561.
97.
Morris, J., ed. 2000. Rethinking risk and the precautionary principle. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
98.
Munro, R., and J. Mouritsen , eds. 1996. Accountability: Power, ethos and the technologies of managing. London: International Thomson Business Press.
99.
National Research Council.1996. Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
100.
Neyland, D., and S. Woolgar.2002. Accountability in action?British Journal of Sociology53:259-74.
101.
Nowotny, H.2006. Rethinking interdisciplinarity: The potential of transdisciplinarity . Paris: CNRS . http://www.interdisciplines.org/interdisciplinarity/papers/5 (accessed July 16, 2006).
102.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons.2001. Rethinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. London: Polity.
103.
Nuclear Industry Association.2006. Nuclear new build: The legal challenge. London : Nuclear Industry Association. http://www.niauk.org/industrylink/article_152.shtml (accessed August 22, 2006).
104.
Nuclear Spin. 2006. Web-access database. http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Main_Page (accessed August 22, 2006).
105.
O'Brien, M.2000. Making better environmental decisions: An alternative to risk assessment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
106.
Office of Nuclear Energy.2006. Improving the nuclear engineering and science curricula. http://www.ne.doe.gov/university/university1.html (accessed August 22, 2006).
107.
Ogilvie, J.2002. Creating better futures: Scenario planning as a tool for a better tomorrow. Oxford, UK: EH Business.
108.
O'Neill, O.2002. A question of trust: The 2002 BBC Reith lectures . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
109.
O'Riordan, T., and A. Jordan , eds. 2000. Reinterpreting the precautionary principle. London: Cameron May.
110.
Owen, H.1997. Open space technology: A user's guide. 2nd ed. New York: Berrett-Koehler .
111.
Owens, S.2000. Engaging the public: Information and deliberation in environmental policy. Environment and Planning A32:1141-48.
112.
Owens, S., and R. Cowell.2002. Land and limits: Interpreting sustainability in the planning process. London: Routledge.
113.
Pellizzoni, L.2001. The myth of the best argument: Power deliberation and reason. British Journal of Sociology52 (1): 59-86.
114.
———. 2003. Uncertainty and participatory democracy. Environmental Values12 (2): 195-224.
115.
Petts, J.2001. Evaluating the effectiveness of deliberate processes: Waste management casestudies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management44 (2): 207-26.
116.
Pimbert, M., and T. Wakeford.2002. Prajateerpu: A citizens jury/scenario workshop on food and farming futures for Andhra Pradesh, India. London: IIED. http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/9135IIED.pdf (accessed August 22, 2006).
117.
Power, M.1999. The audit society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
118.
Rauschmayer, F., and H. Wittmer.2006. How to select instruments for the resolution of environmental conflicts? Journal of Land Use Policy23:1-9.
119.
Rawls, J.1993. Political liberalism. New York : Columbia University Press.
120.
———. 1997. The idea of public reason revisited. University of Chicago Law Review64:767.
121.
Renn, O., T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann.1995. Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht , Netherlands: Kluwer.
122.
Rescher, N.1993. Pluralism: Against the demand for consensus. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
123.
Rowe, G., and L. Frewer.2000. Public participation methods: An evaluative review of the literature. Science, Technology, & Human Values25:3-29.
124.
Sabatier, P.1975. Social movements and regulatory agencies: Toward a more adequate—and less pessimistic—theory of “clientele capture .” Policy Sciences6:301-42.
125.
Saltelli, A.2001. Sensitivity analysis for importance assessmentIspra, Italy: EC Joint Research Centre. http://www.ce.ncsu.edu/risk/pdf/saltelli.pdf (accessed April 15, 2005).
126.
Schwartz, M., and M. Thompson.1990. Divided we stand: Redefining politics, technology and social choice. London: Harvester.
127.
Sclove, D.1995. Democracy and technology. New York : Guilford.
128.
Scoones, I., and J. Thompson , eds. 2001. Prajateerpu e-forum on participatory processes for policy change. London: International Insitute for Environment and Development. http://www.iied.org/NR/agbioliv/pla_notes/documents/plan_04610.pdf (accessed December 20, 2007).
129.
Seligman, A.1997. The problem of trust. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.
130.
Smith A., and A. Stirling.2007. Moving outside or inside? Objectification and reflexivity in the governance of socio-technical systems. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning8 (3-4): 1-23.
131.
Smith A., A. Stirling, and F. Berkhout.2005. The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Research Policy34:1491-510.
132.
Stirling, A.1994. Diversity and ignorance in electricity supply investment: Addressing the solution rather than the problem. Energy Policy22:195-216.
133.
———. 1997. Multicriteria mapping: Mitigating the problems of environmental valuation? In Valuing nature: Economics, ethics and environment , edited by J. Foster, 186-210. London : Routledge.
134.
———. 1998a. On the economics and analysis of diversity. SPRU Electronic Working Paper No. 28, Sussex University, Brighton, UK.
135.
———. 1998b. Risk at a turning point?Journal of Risk Research1 (2): 97-110. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/publications/imprint/sewps/sewp28/sewp28.html (accessed December 20, 2007).
136.
———. 2003. Risk, uncertainty and precaution: Some instrumental implications from the social sciences. In Negotiating change , edited by F. Berkhout, M. Leach, and I. Scoones , 33-76. London : Elgar.
137.
———. 2005. Opening up or closing down: Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. In Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement, edited by M. Leach, I. Scoones , and B. Wynne, 218-31. London : Zed.
138.
———. 2006a. Analysis, participation and power: Justification and closure in participatory multi-criteria analysis. Land Use Policy23:85-107.
139.
———. 2006b. Precaution, foresight and sustainability: Reflection and reflexivity in the governance of science and technology. In Sustainability and reflexive governance, edited by J.-P. Voß and R. Kemp, 335-72. Cheltenham : Edward Elgar.
140.
———. 2007a. A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of the Royal Society Interface4:707-19.
141.
———. 2007b. Deliberate futures: Precaution and progress in social choice of sustainable technology. Sustainable Development15:286-95.
142.
———. Forthcoming. Science, precaution and participation: Towards more `reflexive governance' for sustainability. In The governance of sustainability , edited by A. Jordan and N. Adger.Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
143.
Stirling, A., T. Lobstein, and E. Millstone.2006. Methodology for obtaining stakeholder assessments of obesity policy options in the PorGrow project. Obesity Review8 (2): 17-27.
144.
Stirling, A., and S. Mayer.2001. A novel approach to the appraisal of technological risk. Environment and Planning C19:529-55.
145.
Strategy Unit of the Prime Minister (SU).2002. The energy review. London: UK Cabinet Office. http://www.strategy.gov.uk/downloads/su/energy/TheEnergyReview.pdf (accessed July 16, 2006).
146.
Strathern, M., ed. 2000. Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability. London : Routledge.
147.
Sustainable Development Commission.2006. Submission to the DTI nuclear review. London: Sustainable Development Commission. http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications (accessed August 22, 2006).
148.
Taverne, D.2005. The march of unreason: Science, democracy and the new fundamentalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
149.
U.K. Centre for Economy, Environment and Development.1999. Final report of consensus conference on radioactive waste management. Cambridge: United Kingdom Centre for Economy, Environment and Development.
150.
United Nations Development Programme.2000 . Statement by M. Malloch Brown, head of the United Nations Development Programme. New York: United Nations Development Programme. http://www.undp.org/hdr2001/clips/newsweek1.pdf (accessed April 15, 2005).
151.
Van Zwanenberg, P., and E. Millstone.2004. BSE: Risk, science and governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
152.
Vig, N., and H. Paschen , eds. 2000. Parliaments and technology: The development of technology assessment in Europe. New York : State University of New York Press.
153.
Voß J., D. Bauknecht , and R. Kemp, eds. 2006. Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Cheltenham , UK: Edward Elgar.
154.
Wakeford, T.2001. A comparison of deliberative processes. PLA Notes40:7-19.
155.
———. 2002. Citizen's juries: A radical alternative for social research . Social Research Update37:1-5.
156.
Walker, W.2000. Entrapment in large technical systems: Institutional commitment and power relations. Research Policy29:833-46.
157.
Wallace, H.2001. The issue of framing and consensus conferences . PLA Notes40:61-63.
158.
Webler T., H. Kastenholz, and O. Renn.1995. Public participation in impact assessment: A social learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review15:443-63.
159.
Weldon, S., and B. Wynne.2001. UK national report: Assessing Debate and Participative Technology Assessment (ADAPTA) (Project No. BIO-CT98-0318) . Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University . http://www.inra.fr/sed/science-gouvernance/pub/ADAPTA/uk-report.pdf (accessed August 22, 2006).
160.
Werner, R.2004. Designing strategy: Scenario analysis and the art of making business strategy. New York: Praeger .
161.
Williams, R., and D. Edge.1996. The social shaping of technology. Research Policy25:865-99.
162.
Wilsdon, J., and R. Willis.2004. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos. http://www.demos.co.uk/catalogue/paddlingupstream/ (accessed April 15, 2005).
163.
Winner, L.1977. Autonomous technology: Technics out of control as a theme in political thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
164.
Woodward, W.2007. Judge deals blow to Blair's nuclear plans: Court rules consultation on power stations was `misleading and flawed.' Guardian, February 16, 2007.
165.
Wynne, B.1987. Risk perception, decision analysis and the public acceptance problem. In Risk management and hazardous waste: Implementation and the dialectics of credibility, edited by B. Wynne, 269-310. Berlin: Springer.
166.
———. 1992. Uncertainty and environmental learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environmental Change2:111-27.
167.
———. 1995. Technology assessment and reflexive social learning: Observations from the risk field. In Managing technology in society, edited by A. Rip, T. Misa, and J. Schot , 19-36. London : Pinter.
168.
———. 1996. May the sheep safely graze? In Risk environment and modernity: Toward a new ecology, edited by S. Lash, B. Szerszynski , and B. Wynne, 44-83. London : Sage.
169.
———. 1997. Methodology and institutions: Value as seen from the risk field. In Valuing nature: Economics, ethics and environment , edited by J. Foster, 135-52. London : Routledge.
170.
———. 2001. Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture10:445-48.
171.
———. 2002. Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: Reflexivity inside out? Current Sociology50:459-77.
172.
Yearly, S.2001. Mapping and interpreting societal responses to genetically modified crops and food. Social Studies of Science31 (1): 151-60.
173.
Zurita, L.2006. Consensus conference method in environmental issues: Relevance and strengths. Land Use Policy23:18-25.
