LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Subjects: T0175, HD5701
This thesis examines the theoretical premises of and ways that macro deliberative approaches to decision making function in application to specific instances of science and technology governance. Macro-level deliberations constitute complex, extended, distributed decision making processes, in contrast to individual micro deliberation exercises undertaken in particular settings. Macro deliberations employ the mechanism of ‘division of labour’ in terms of actors, tasks and methods in order to secure the two essential qualities of ‘inclusiveness’ and ‘deliberativeness’ – thus resolving the inherent tension between number of participants and deep discussion. Accordingly, the thesis focuses on the ways in which this paradoxical mechanism of ‘inclusion by division’ functions in macro deliberations. An interrogation of two UK nationwide public deliberation cases – GM Dialogue (on GM crops) and the CoRWM process (on radioactive waste) – sheds light on the significant role of reflexivity in such macro deliberative approaches to decision making.\ud \ud The thesis adopts a triangulated approach towards both documents and interviews employing contending representations to cross-check the one with the other. In considering the ways in which reflexivity constitutes a critical quality of the process and outcome of division of labour in macro deliberations, the thesis argues that the notion of reflexivity is central to explaining how macro deliberation functions:\ud \ud The reflective and self-contingent feature of reflexivity enables participants to explore diverse rationales on division of labour through continuous generation of new rationales; this recursive self-reconfiguration process of rationales on division of labour entails an evolutionary development of division of labour. As division of labour is played out not in a static, exogenous fashion, but through a dynamic, endogenous construction process, reflexivity in real-world macro deliberations illuminates some significant contrasts in the ways that ‘deliberation’ and ‘inclusion’ take place to those characterised in theory.\ud \ud Indeed, deliberation emerges in practice as more than just open rational dialogue. In order to understand this more fully, it must be seen in terms of diversity of material, social and political interactions, and relationships – referred to here as ‘discursive relations’. In reality, then, inclusion occurs in more emergent ways than intended by design, rather, unfolding as participants engage with each other. In this way, actors’ divergent views are cross-reflected and mutually influence each other, not through theoretically-envisaged top-down aggregation but via a kind of endogenous ‘fermentation’ process. In this way, reflexivity actually makes macro public deliberation a more effectively inclusive and deliberative decision making process.\ud \ud In short, recognition of this inherent reflexivity in macro deliberations offers practically to aid improved understanding of the complex process of engagement in science and technology governance. It suggests that we would benefit from shifting our attention somewhat away from the direct provision of strictly prescriptive design protocols towards the construction of better general environments for facilitating more reflexivity, which should enable actors to shape their own reflexive deliberation.\ud Then let them brew!
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (2005) '23rd Plenary Meeting Minute', November 2005(Doc 1417)
    • Hendriks, C. (2004) 'Public Deliberation and Interest Organizations: A Study of Responses Kelly, J. (2002) 'Public Attitudes to the Commercialisation of GM Crops'. A Report on Desk Research for COI Communications, December 2002.
    • Kemp, R.V., Bennett, D.G., and White, M.J. (2006) 'Recent Trends and Developments in Dialogue on Radioactive Waste Management: Experience from the UK'. Environment International, 32(8), pp. 1021-1032.
    • Kemp, R. and Loorbach, D. (2006) 'Transition Management: A Reflexive Governance Approach. In Voss, J.P., Bauknecht, D. and Kemp, R. (eds.) Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. Cheltenham : Edward Elgar, pp. 103-130.
    • Kickert, W.J.M., Klijn, E-H. and Koppenjan, J.F.M (eds.) (1997) Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
    • Konig, A. (2006) 'Safe Foods: Improving Decision-making on Food Safety', Food Quality and Safety Research, Wageningen: Institute of Food Safety.
    • Leach, M., Scoones, I. and Wynne, B. (eds.) (2005) Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement. London: Zed Books.
    • GM Science Review Panel (2002) '1st Panel Meeting Minute'. December 10, 2002.
    • GM Science Review Panel (2003) '2nd Panel Meeting Minute'. February 18, 2003.
    • Pellizzoni, L. (2003) 'Knowledge, Uncertainty and the Transformation of the Public Sphere', European Journal of Social Theory, 6(3), pp. 327-355.
    • Performance and Innovation Unit (2002) The Energy Review, A Performance and Innovation Unit Report, February 2002. London: Cabinet Office.
    • Phillips, L., Bridgeman, J. and Ferguson-Smith, M. (2000) The BSE Inquiry: The Report.
    • Pierre, J. and Peters, B.G. (2000), Governance, Politics and the State. Basingstoke and London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
    • Renn, O. (1998) 'The Role of Risk Communication and Public Dialogue for Improving Risk Management', Risk Decision and Policy, 3(1), pp. 5-30.
    • Renn, O. (2004) 'The Challenge of Integrating Deliberation and Expertise: Participation and Discourse in Risk Management'. In McDaniels, T. and Small M.J. (eds.) Risk Analysis and Society: An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 289-366.
    • Saward, M. (2003) 'Enacting Democracy', Political Studies, 51(1), pp.161-179.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article