Technological Citizenship: A Normative Framework for Risk Studies
Abstract
This article introduces the concept of technological citizenship (TC) as a status for individuals consisting of rights and obligations within bounded technological polities enforced by statist structures. The model reconciles freedom to innovate with the affirmation of the autonomy and dignity of laypersons and the assimilation of laypersons with their world. It seeks lay control over the introduction and ongoing management of environmental hazards and self-verification of safety. The rights and obligations of TC compose a "new social contract of complexity." Even with different values stressed, the name, concept, and terms of TC would streamline studies of peril.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
1. This "new social contract of complexity" denotes two things: (1) a compact among people holding different levels of knowledge within the context of a technologically complex society and (2) the form of relationship humans hold with complex technologies, with complex technology, and even with "complexity" itself The idea of a "social contract" is borrowed from Jerome Ravetz (cited in Otway 1987). Ravetz actually refers to a "new social contract of expertise." Complexity has been chosen over expertise as the object of the desired social compact because it is logically prior to expertise and more basic The complexity of complex hazards creates the conditions for differential expertise, experts, and political inequality.
2. Eventually, TC and the "new social contract of complexity" will cover all relationships affected by technology and not merely those concerned with physical hazards. This introductory essay focuses exclusively on political equality surrounding physical hazards because equality in the ability to protect one's self from physical harm is more concrete, less controversial, and more universally accepted than equality of such nonphysical values stratified by technical complexity and unequal education as wealth, power, and status.
3. In many ways, the hyperdemocratic TC view offered here already exists as a putative construct within the best works in risk studies It exists in actual laws, such as California's Proposition 65. Other laws embodying TC are the National Environmental Protection Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Freedom of Information Act. Laypersons are already being drawn into the nascent TC concept. They are being drawn into it through a vortex of disconnected terms and piecemeal movements These include "scientific literacy," "risk communication" (RC), "science shops," "science courts," referenda, hearings, "NIMBY" (not in my backyard), whistle-blowing, aerial spraying, environmental impact assessments, social impact assessments, local environmental policy councils (LEPCs; Hadden 1989), "technocracy," "democratizing technology," "democratizing complexity," technology assessment, and technology transfer (cf. Piller 1991). Vocabulary is destiny. It is time laypersons were given a single hook such as TC that they can grasp to actually become citizens within technological society. Analytically, the TC model lacks only a name, a few connections, a few unique, root-targeted policy prescriptions, and a rigorous normative basis. This article's net contribution is to lend these and to bring this model and its terms into common parlance.
4 For most of TC, we focus on tools, gadgets, and know-how related to them Eventually, TC and the social contract of complexity might be extended to include the pursuit of greater political equality between laypersons and experts on all matters that hinge upon technical, complex issues or that involve claims that they do, such as arcane laws and foreign policy and not just physical hazards and technologies
5. This term comes from Giddens (1990).
6 These goals of citizenship were induced from T H. Marshall and others. Unlike texts on democracy and liberalism, works on citizenship often lack such rigorous normative rationales for why this unique form of membership is desirable
7 This reconciliation-based definition ofTC does not necessarily imply an acceptance of consequentialist policy formulas, such as cost-benefit analysis, in making risk or technology policy Some authors who accept the term TC-including me-might take a deontic view and deem certain values inviolable. There might even be some quasi-"constitutional," outcome-determinant features of TC, such as prior caps on certain levels of endangerment or prior caps on certain life spans of hazardous installations, that override outcome-neutral procedures in order to protect the overarching autonomy and dignity of people in present and future generations As Mill ([1859] 1956, 235-36) states, we must constitutionally proscribe individuals and collectivities from signing contracts of slavery that alienate their autonomy in a way that is permanent, irreversible, absolute, and unforeseeable as to nature or magnitude. The advent or installation of certain types of hazardous technologies is similar to such enslavement or alienation of autonomy, even if "signed" or "consented to" voluntarily.
8. Virtually no Western system of technoethics forbids technological dynamism. The exception is the Amish religion. Practitioners of the Amish religion forbid change in order to preserve assimilation of humans with their environment and to preserve social stasis and social solidarity. They value assimilation and social stasis more than any benefits of material progress. They believe that technological change always disrupts social solidarity. They in turn hold social solidarity as the summum bonum of human existence. The goal of TC is to preserve technological dynamism even if we renegotiate the social contract between regulators and those affected by technological hazards. The goal is to preserve technological dynamism even if we eliminate such institutions now central to it as "indirect consent" and "hypothetical consent." It is to preserve technological dynamism even if we dauntingly expose the existence and fragility of modernity's implicit social contract and replace it with direct, explicit consent, consummation, and legitimation (Dahl 1985; Fischhoff 1985; Gibson 1985; Scheffler 1985; MacNeil 1980; Medina 1990). The boundaries and civil requirements of the societal oikos shift with shifting concepts of (1) the public and the private and of (2) harmfulness, beneficialness, and unknown, changed by (a) new scientific knowledge about the impacts of techne and (b) shifting norms. The emphasis on assimilation of people with their fellow people and built environment within the technological polity, as opposed to alienation and the emphasis on equality of people's abilities to comprehend the workings and detection of the human-made hazards surrounding them, is similar to some of Aristotle's primary concerns of citizenship. These include manageability, self-sufficiency, and depth of assimilation and familiarity of the human with society as opposed to estrangement and alienation (see Bookchin 1987). Aristotle sought a polis that was of a manageable size. In this way, everyone was quite deeply, thickly, and richly familiar with each other. He sought a low division of labor and a high equality in capacities of self-sufficiency. He sought a low inequality in degrees of dependence upon and thus vulnerability to others. Through this self-sufficiency and this assimilation, he sought within the public sphere an equality of life; a low inequality, resentment, and conflict; and a higher quality of law, morality, and civility. Analogously, a goal of TC is to minimize the complexity of artificial hazards in relation to the ability of present laypersons at any time to comprehend them. In that way, equality of self-sufficiency in protection from complex environmental harm and in verification of safety is achieved. Resentment and conflict from inequalities, dependence, and vulnerabilities are reduced. The quality of life is maximized. Ironically, however, Aristotle probably would have preferred technocracy over meaningful TC.
9. Coincidentally, all of these jurisdictions boast laws and agencies that richly vivify TC.
10. The "noosphere" is defined as that sphere or realm of the cosmos embodying all human consciousness and cognition with particular respect to its impact on the biosphere and evolution. The plastic explosives "noösphere" would thus be all the locations where knowledge exists of how to produce and use this weapon and-more loosely—the realm of actual and potential impact of this knowledge. It is safe to say that this sphere of knowledge and impact is global in scope. This is because no fail-safe technology exists for the detection and seizure of plastic explosives let alone of knowledge about them. Certain specific locations within the world— such as airplane cabins at thirty thousand feet and Belfast pubs — entail greater imperilment of humans than others because of their size or precariousness.
11. Nuclear-free zones are more "statuspheres" or spheres of status gained from conspicuous compunction than spheres of binding protection, at least in the short term.
12. In which responsibilities are more binding than entitlements to protection from the manufacture of weapons by nonsignatories or defectors.
13. For now, we will not belabor the sequence in which TC should evolve in relation to existing forms of citizenship or even the sequence in which it already has evolved in relation to these forms of citizenship. There are plenty of empirical and survey researchers who study the reciprocal evolution or "cross-fertilization" of liberalism and of an environmental ethos or "environmentalism." There are also plenty of researchers who study this cross-fertilization between concepts of environmentalism and such antistate and anticitizenship ideologies as Marxism, syndicalism, Proudhonism, and anarchism. (cf. Douglas 1985; Burns and Ueberhorst 1988; Gardner and Gould 1989; Thompson 1986; James and Thompson 1989). Such researchers are encouraged to pursue research into the ideational and cultural origins of TC. Most likely, TC will be shown both to derive from general citizenship and to be mutually reinforcing of it. A process of reciprocal cross-fertilization is probably operative. Thus TC would be similar to the organic evolution of environmentalism that was both derived from and reinforcing of liberalism and its undergirding ethos of progressivism, suspicion of tyranny, compassion, democracy, responsibility, equality, equity, and fairness.
14. Citizenship can be reified when the subject to which agencies and institutions are addressed are collectivities of humans, even abstract ones such as "generations" or even "posterity." However, global and regional citizenship reifies faster when the subject is the individual as in the case of human rights and, in some cases, refugees. I invite biocentrists to incorporate rocks, trees, and abstract wilderness conditions or states of being within the ambit of citizenship. But this is moot. They would probably prefer a less anthropocentric term than citizenship for their ethic in the first place.
15. Harris and Miklis (1989) present the concept of regulatory regime. An example of a change in a technology regulation regime would be the advent in 1976 of the U.S. Congress's Office of Technology Assessment. Its advent heralded a significantly new era in which society decided to prospectively predict and systematically analyze the physical and social effects of certain of its technologies instead of merely discovering these effects and addressing them postharm and haphazardly. The advent of TC as a concept would constitute such a significant change in the technology regulation regime. This advent would change attitudes about and rationales for providing affected subjects with information about and participation in governing the environmental hazards around them. It would reorder modernity in a fundamental way.
16. These informational resources should be presented to laypersons in the terminology of "technological citizenship" and "the political resources" of "technological decision making" and "empowerment."
17. Questions initiated to these can concern specific harmful projects or the methods of detecting releases or the reason for unusual smells, sights, or sounds emanating from a facility that suggest abnormal release. The goal of information is either peace of mind through self-verification of safety or autonomy through the increased capacity of citizens to informedly "exit" from hazardous situations and to informedly initiate demands for shutdowns.
18. This would recognize the fact that priority of position within the decision stream grants greater "leverage" over what is developed and what is not and over how many aggregate vulnerabilities to expert-inflicted harms and hazards lay individuals must endure. Winner (1980), Lindblom (1977), and others remind us that "to innovate is to legislate." Through this, TC might tie in with economic democracy. Boundaries between "public" and "private," "political" and "social" might be redrawn.
19 These have been evaluated in the literature in the implicit spirit of enriching the quality of technological citizenship and the social contract of complexity. However, authors rarely invoke the terms citizenship or social contract. We will leave it to legal anthropologists to determine whether these tort reforms constitute necessary rights of citizenship without which citizenship and its overarching values of dignity, autonomy, and assimilation are meaningless. Tort reforms are definitely not sufficient for creating meaningful technological citizenship or a meaningful social contract of complexity.
20 More accurately, Dahl (1985) advocates the fusion of these two stages and the use of the minipopulous in both stages of decision making over complex hazards: (1) determination by people of whether or not they can comprehend the issues and (2) decision. Jefferson in his often-quoted letter to W. C. Jarvis of 28 September 1820 (Ford 1899, 160-61) inveighs against barring people from determining for themselves whether or not they are competent to render political decisions on complex matters. Jefferson favors educating them on such questions over preordinately, externally, and paternalistically restricting people's right to control their own destiny TC also promotes education. But the attempt to create a meaningful social contract and a meaningful form of citizenship or equal membership in the twentieth century amid greater complexity and unequal expertise than existed in Jefferson's time demands that we at least debate whether we should have such paternalistic, prior, Ulyssean safeguards of informed consent. This merely constitutes extending our existing requirements of informed consent by individuals for the application of medical treatment to informed consent by collectivities for the application of technologies.
21. Rationality is often most persuasive when leavened with a little humanity or appeals to emotion or to the character of the speaker. It is also often wiser and frames issues in a more valid way when so leavened. Science courts may have the overarching, structural consequence on laypersons of instilling epistemological skepticism-or even epistemological alienation. This could shatter all trust upon which the division of labor and modernity itself rests Fully assimilated technological citizens as opposed to mere subjects to technologies must develop a more finely articulated, more resilient form of trustlike orientation involving belief in experts and delegation of power to experts than their current forms of trust, confidence, faith, hope, and reliance. This form of enlightened, resilient trustlike orientation is termed critical trust. Science courts and knowledge of the technological advent or operation stream in general will dispel the "is/ought" fallacy. They will teach people that while necessity may be one parent of invention, politics is often the other.
22. Obviously, the vulnerability of future generations to hazardous know-how, such as how to construct nuclear weapons from weapons-grade material, how to produce biological weapons, or how to synthesize incurable novel viruses through genetic engineering, cannot be withdrawn or forgotten once developed Innocence cannot be restored. Given the irreversibility and inevitable growth of harmful knowledge, those living in future generations will inevitably be exposed to a greater variety of potential hazards The goal is to ensure that they will not also be more vulnerable to harm or more uncertain and fearful but, rather, will be equally as capable of self-protection and self-verification of safety and peace of mind as we.
23 See Matthews (1984) on the rich etymological origin and meanings of public m terms of maturity, commonality, and common caring
24 According to Bookchin (1987), the origins of the obligation of this equal membership and status of citizenship lie in the Greek concepts of isonomia and autarcheia . These involve the belief that true equality of status derives from the equality of self-sufficiency as opposed to dependency upon and vulnerability to others by both individuals and the village The external threat to isonomia and collective and individual autarcheia was enslavement by foreign occupiers The obligation to perform military service to preserve these fundamental purposes of citizenship of isonomia, autarcheia, democracy, and the fraternal sense of polis was accepted as an inseparable piece of the citizenship bargain.
25. Beitz (1989) terms this "deliberative responsibility."
26. Shortland (1988, 315) reminds us that the failure by laypersons to use scientific information can discredit them. Iteratively, it can reduce general legitimacy for public participation among purveyors of technologies—even among members of the public themselves and bring calls for the withdrawal of many forms of it even by the citizens themselves. Bluntly, laypersons must get their facts straight.
27. It is also significant for TC involving passive, individual, more private consumer decisions that affect other people in society and in future generations.
28. Collaterally, the state is obligated to provide a fair and yeasty forum for moral discourse on what is owed to whom, by whom, and why. McGregor (1984) holds that the state must provide citizens with civic capital to guide their decision making toward greater and broader social responsibility or civism. Thus a number of writers on scientific literacy have stressed the obligation of laypersons in technological societies to understand the rudiments of science and technology.
29. I will proffer no metatheory for why researchers have not actually invoked the terms citizenship or social contract. Lack of perspicacity is not at fault. Perhaps it is simple geometry: One can draw more verbiage out of circling around the issue than from cutting straight through it. Perhaps writers avoid deconstructing their hidden agendas in order to avoid alienating funding sources. The TC model might shatter the myth that keeps the current stately gavotte of risk studies going. However, it might also prove the quick, sly faux pas that jumps over the lazy dogma.
30. Recently, interest in the concept of citizenship has increased intensely among academics, journalists, and politicians independently of its possible relation to technology. At the global level, citizenship is discussed most often in relation to universal human rights. Many have written that global environmental problems—and global technological issues that are the more basic cause of them—will spearhead greater consciousness of emerging global commonality of subjectivity, emerging desires for equality of status with respect to these common impacts, and emerging global citizenship even faster than will quests for global human rights. At the domestic level, citizenship is used increasingly to encapsulate the unity of rights and responsibilities of welfare recipients and jobs programs participants. Both communitarian liberals and neoconservatives find this concept and term attractive, even when they place different emphases upon, respectively, the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. The journal embodying this new interest in citizenship, human interconnectedness and commonality, and a positive view of human nature from both a communitarian liberal and neoconservative perspective (in contrast to a traditional liberal perspective stressing individualism, atomism, and a negative view of human nature) is The Responsive Community.
References
Alexander, M. 1988. Anticipating the potential environmental impacts of emerging technologies: The case of genetic engineering In Conflicting facts and values in environmental impact assessment: Theories and techniques, edited by E. L Hyman and B. Stiffel, 165-86. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Barber, B. 1984. Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
. 1988 . The conquest of politics: Liberal philosophy in democratic times. Princeton, NJ: Pnnceton University Press.
Barry, B. 1983 Intergenerational justice in energy policy In Energy and the future, edited by D. MacLean and P Brown, 15-30. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Lattlefield.
Beitz, C. 1989. Political equality An essay in democratic theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bezold, C. 1987. Beyond technocracy: Anticipatory democracy in government and the marketplace In Citizen participation in public decision making, edited by J. DeSario and S. Langton. New York. Greenwood.
Bookchin, M. 1987. The rise of urbanization and the decline of citizenship . San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
- 1990. Remaking society: Pathways to a green future Boston: South End Press.
Bums, T., and R. Ueberhorst. 1988. Creative democracy: Systematic conflict resolution and policymaking in a world of high science and technology. New York: Praeger.
Callahan, D. 1976. Ethical responsibility in science in the face of uncertain consequences Annals of the New YorkAcademy of Sciences . Vol. 265. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Covello, V. T., ed. 1983. The analysis of actual versus perceived risks. New York: Plenum.
Covello, V. T., D. B. McCallum, and M. T. Pavlova, eds. 1989. Workshop on the role of government in health risk communication and public education. New York: Plenum .
Dahl, R.A. 1985. Controlling nuclear weapons: Democracy versus guardianship Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press
Davies, J.C. Covello, V.T. and Allen, F.W.eds. 1987. Risk communication: Proceedings of the National Conference on Risk Communication held in Washington, D.C., January 29-31, 1986 Washington, DC. Conservation Foundation.
DeGeorge, R.T. 1985. The nature and limits of authority Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Dietz, T., C. Stem, and R.W. Rycroft. 1989. Definitions of conflict and the legitimation of resources The case of environmental risk Sociological Forum 4:47-70.
Douglas, M. 1985. Risk acceptability according to social sciences New York: Russell Sage Foundation .
Douglas, M., and A. Wildavsky 1982 Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers Berkeley. University of California Press.
Easton, D. 1979 A systems analysis of political life Rev. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Engelhardt, H T, Jr., and A. L. Caplan, eds. 1987. Scientific controversy: Case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology. Cambridge: Cambndge University Press
English, M.R. 1988 The search for political authority in Massachusetts' toxic waste management law Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 16.39-52.
Faden, R.R. 1986 A history of informed consent New York. Oxford University Press
Fiorino, D.J. 1990 Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms Science, Technology, & Human Values 15:226-43.
Fischhoff, B. 1985 Cognitive and institutional barriers to informed consent In To breathe freely Risk, consent, and air, edited by M Gibson, 169-85 Totowa, NJ Rowman & Allanheld.
Ford, P L, ed 1899 The writings of Thomas Jefferson. Vol. 10, 1816 -1826. New York: Putnam's
Gardner, G.T., and L.C. Gould 1989 Public perceptions of risks and benefits of technology Risk Analysis 9 225-42
Gibson, M. 1985 Consent and autonomy In To breathe freely Risk, consent, and air Totowa, NJ Rowman & Allanheld
Giddens, A. 1990. The consequences of modernity Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gricar, B., and A. Beratta. 1983. Bridging the information gap at Three Mile Island: Radiation monitoring by citizens Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences 19:35-49.
Hacking, I. 1986. Culpable ignorance of interference effects In Values at risk, edited by D. MacLean. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.
Hadden, S. 1989. A citizen's right to know: Risk communication and public policy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Harris, R.A., and S.M. Miklis. 1989. The politics of regulatory change: A tale of two agencies Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haskell, T. E., ed. 1984. The authority of experts: Studies in history and theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hurca, T. 1987. Why value autonomy? Social Theory and Practice 13:361-82.
James, P., and M. Thompson. 1989. The plural rationality approach In Environmental threats: Perception, analysis, management, edited by J. Brown. New York: Belhaven .
Janowitz, M. 1980. Observations on the sociology of citizenship: Obligations and rights Social Forces 59:1-24.
Jonas, H. 1984. The imperatives of responsibility: The search for an ethics for the technological age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Krimsky, S., and A. Plough. 1988. Environmental hazards: Communicating risks as a social process. Dover, MA: Auburn House.
Lindblom, C. 1977. Politics and markets: The world's politico-economic systems. New York: Basic Books .
MacLean, D. 1986. Risk and consent: Philosophical issues for centralized decisions In Values at risk, edited by D. MacLean. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld .
Maclrteil, I. 1980. The new social contract. The 1979 Rosenthal Lecture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Masters, R.D., and A.R. Kantrowitz . 1988. Scientific adversary procedures: Experiments at Dartmouth In Technology and politics, edited by M. E. Kraft and N. J. Vig, 279-98. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Matthews, D. 1984. The public in practice and theory Public Administration Review Special issue on citizenship and public administration. 44:120-25.
McCombs, M.M., and P. Poindexter. 1983. The duty to keep informed: News exposure and civic obligation Journal of Communication 33:88-96.
McGregor, E.B., Jr. 1984. The great paradox of democratic citizenship and public personnel administration Public Administration Review 44:126-31.
Medina, V. 1990. Social contract: Theories, critics, and defenders. Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield .
Mill, J.S. [1859] 1956. On liberty, edited by C. V Shield. New York: Liberal Arts Press.
Monson, P.C. 1983. Radioactive air pollution from uranium mining: Regulatory abdication in the face of scientific uncertainty Environmental Law 13:545-58.
National Research Council. Committee on Risk Perception and Communication. 1989. Improving risk communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Otway, H.J. 1987. Experts, risk communication and democracy Risk Analysis 7:125-29.
Perrow, C. 1984. Normal accidents: Living with high risk technologies. New York: Basic Books.
Piller, C. 1991. The fail-safe society: Community defiance and the end of American technological optimism. New York: Basic Books.
Sandman, P.M., D.B. Sachsman, M.P. Greenberg, and M. Gochfeld. 1987. Environmental risks and the press: An exploratory assessment. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Sandman, P.M., N.D. Weinstein, and M.L. Klotz. 1987. Public response to risk from geological radon Journal of Communication 37:93-108.
Scheffler, S. 1985 The role of consent in the legitimation of risky activity In To breathe freely: Rrsk, consent, and air, edited by M. Douglas, 75-88. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.
Shortland, M. 1988. Advocating science literacy and public understanding Impact of Science on Society 152:305-16.
Sjoberg, L., ed. 1987. Risk and society: Studies of risk generation and reactions to risk. Boston: Allen & Unwin.
Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein . 1982. Rating the risks: The structure of lay and expert perceptions In Risk in the technological society, edited by C. Hohenemser and J. X. Kasperson, 141-66. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Thompson, M. 1986. To hell with turkeys! A diatribe directed against the pernicious torpidity of the current Intellectual debate on risk In Values at risk, edited by D. MacLean. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.
Turner, B.S. 1986. Citizenship and capitalism: The debate over reformism. Boston: Allen & Unwin .
Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1981. The forming of decisions and the rationality of choice Science 22:433-58.
Viscussi, W.K. 1983. Alternative approaches to valuing the health impacts of accident liability law and prospective evaluations Law and Contemporary Problems 46:49-68.
Viscussi, W.K., and C.J. O'Connor . 1984. Adaptive responses to chemical labeling: Are workers Bayesian decision-makers? American Economic Review 74:946-56.
Waddell, C. 1988 Reasonableness vs. rationality in the justification of science policy decisions: The case of the Cambridge Experimental Review Board Science, Technology, & Human Values 14.7-25.
- 1989 The role of pathos in the decision-making process: A study in the rhetoric of science policy Quarterly Journal of Speech 76:381-400.
Weterings, R., and J. Van Eindhoven 1989. Informing the public about uncertain risks Risk Analysis 9:473-82.
Winner, L. 1980. Autonomous technology: Technics out-of-control as a theme in political thought. Cambridge MIT Press
-. 1985. On not hitting the tar baby: Risk assessment and conservatism In To breathe freely: Risk, consent. and air, edited by M. Gibson, 269-84. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allenheld.
Yankelovich, D. 1991. Coming to public judgment: Making democracy work in a complex world Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published: October 1992
Issue published: October 1992
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Science, Technology, & Human Values.
VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICSArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 176
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 48 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 60
- The Politics of Deep Time
- From ethnic segregation to equal political status: the Making of the c...
- Understanding the dynamics and conceptualization of environmental citi...
- Towards Digital Segregation? Problematizing the Haves and Have Nots in...
- The Discovery of Interactive Spaces: Learning by Design in High School...
- (Selektywne) zwierciadło bazy danych. O dwóch wymiarach baz danych w k...
- Book review: Ana Delgado (Ed.) (2016), Technoscience and Citizenship: ...
- Citizenship and the Shifting Values of Vietnam's Higher Education
- Technoscientific Citizenship in Citizen Science. Assembling Crowds for...
- Beyond Technological Literacy
- Sexual Violence and Harassment in the Digital Era
- The Potentials and Limitations of Law
- Towards Equal Digital Citizenship
- Incertezas manufacturadas, tecnociência e as políticas da desigualdade...
- Deconstructing facts and frames in energy research: Maxims for evaluat...
- Sociotechnical engineering is one facet of prismatic liberal education
- Embodied Harms...
- State Power and Technological Citizenship in India: From the Postcolon...
- Disaster Management, Disaster Governance, and Disaster Citizenship
- Perceptions of students and teachers on CCTV in a school: Focused on s...
- Framing public engagement: A critical discourse analysis of GM Nation?
- The Dark Side of the Virtual World
- Technology and Citizens
- An Analysis on German School Education about Nuclear Power Generation ...
- Sustainable technological citizenship
- Why do we still need participatory technology assessment?
- Beyond Speaking Truth? Institutional Responses to Uncertainty in Scien...
- KNOWLEDGE POLITICS OF INTERDISCIPLINARITY
- From Professional Ethics to Technological Citizenship
- Practicing technological citizenship
- Public Deliberation in an Age of Direct Citizen Participation
- An epidemiology of women's lives: the environmental risk of breast can...
- Consuming, Engaging and Confronting Science...
- Experten und Laien — Bürgerbeteiligung und Technikfolgenabschätzung in...
- Achieving Sustainable and Innovative Policies through Participatory Go...
- Toward “lay” participation and co-operative learning in TA, technology...
- How Not to Construct a Radioactive Waste Incinerator
- Consensus Conferences as Deliberative Democracy...
- Habermas fightin? waste. Problems of alternative dispute resolution in...
- Diplomacy, Proof, and Authority in the Information Age
- Technologische Bürgerschaft?
- Diplomacy, Proof, and Authority in the Information Age
- Democracy in the risk society? Learning from the new politics of mobil...
- The social management of modern biotechnology and the new industrial d...
- Sustainable Development in a U.S. Context: Analysis and Implications
- European Biotechnology Regulation: Framing the Risk Assessment of a He...
- Democracy, Technocracy, and the Secret State of Medicines Control: Exp...
- Subpolitics: Ecology and the Disintegration of Institutional Power
- Justifying public participation in technical decision making
- World Risk Society as Cosmopolitan Society?...
- Weltrisikogesellschaft, Weltöffentlichkeit und Globale Subpolitik
- Technology and liberty: Enriching the conversation
- Politics on the move: The democratic control of the design of sustaina...
- An ethical risk communication protocol for science and mass communicat...
- Toward a More Democratic Ethic of Technological Governance
- Science, technology, and government: Re-examining the relationship
- Ignorance and Science: Dilemmas, Perspectives, and Prospects
- Umgang mit Unsicherheit und »Umweltangst«
- Conclusions - Replacing Myths With Maxims: Rethinking The Relationship...
- Technological support for e-democracy: history and perspectives
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
