| Title |
From invited to uninvited participation (and back?): rethinking civil society engagement in technology assessment and development
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Poiesis & Praxis, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10202-012-0125-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter Wehling |
| Abstract |
In recent years, citizens' and civil society engagement with science and technology has become almost synonymous with participation in institutionally organized formats of participatory technology assessment (pTA) such as consensus conferences or stakeholder dialogues. Contrary to this view, it is argued in the article that beyond these standardized models of "invited" participation, there exist various forms of "uninvited" and independent civil society engagement, which frequently not only have more significant impact but are profoundly democratically legitimate as well. Using the two examples of patient associations and environmental and consumer organizations in the field of nanotechnology, it is illustrated that interest-based civil society interventions do play an important role in the polycentric governance of science and technology. In conclusion, some implications for the activities of TA institutions and the design of novel TA procedures are outlined. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Poland | 1 | 2% |
| Austria | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 15% |
| Researcher | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 14 | 30% |
| Unknown | 2 | 4% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 23 | 50% |
| Environmental Science | 5 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Philosophy | 2 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 October 2022.
All research outputs
#7,013,982
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Poiesis & Praxis
#7
of 41 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,843
of 162,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Poiesis & Praxis
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 41 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one scored the same or higher as 34 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 162,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them