Content uploaded by Arie Rip
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Arie Rip on Dec 23, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Controversies as Informal Technology A ssessment
Abstract
Controversies, especially those that surround "early warnings" about impacts of a technology or a large project, may be welcomed as an informal way of technology assessment. This is not always recognized, because of ideals of consensus and context-free rationality. An alternative, rhetorical perspective is presented on controversies and their sociocognitive dynamics, in which interests and actor-strategies play an integral role besides arguments and evidence. Because of such interactions, articulation of insights and positions occurs, that is, social learning. Improvement of social learning has to take the sociocognitive dynamics into account. Absolute standards and methods are impossible, but one can take robustness of views as a realistic goal.
... Conflicts, if harnessed appropriately, can provide significant learning opportunities, whereas unaddressed, might lead to divided and differentiated learning among conflicting communities (Cuppen et al. 2019;Beers et al. 2014). Effective conflict management strategies include, for example, Schön and Rein (1994) frame reflection to clarify underlying perspectives and their impact on actionable issues for critical examination and reframing (Voß and Bornemann 2011;Brown and Vergragt 2008) and Rip (1986) approach of using controversy as an informal technology assessment and leveraging diverse viewpoints for further exploration in a widened social setting for more informed and deeper social learning (Voß and Bornemann 2011;Cuppen et al. 2019). ...
This study explores the significance of individual learning in the context of sustainability transitions and examines the possibilities of augmenting human capabilities with artificial intelligence (AI). Looking beyond the predominant collective learning focus, this study presents an integrative literature review that elucidates the underlying factors (paradigm, learning needs, and competencies) and mechanisms (multilevel situational mechanisms; action formation mechanism of the combinatory learning process; and transformational mechanisms of evolutionary and relational nature) that influence the process and role of individual learning in the multilevel embedded context of sustainability transitions. A conceptual framework is developed to discuss the human-centric alignment of AI with these elements. The analysis identifies key points where AI can synergistically enhance the learning process, particularly in the restructuring of learning spaces and the facilitation of learning approaches that improve competency development. Conversely, potential risks are identified in the fitting management of the decentralized application of AI into learning processes, necessitating AI literacy to result in empowered agency. The results highlight the imperative to thoughtfully navigate the creation of human–AI-empowered learning systems by leveraging both systemic and individual perspectives for transparency for the optimized alignment of roles and responsibilities between humans and AI in the creation of an improved learning function necessary to steer sustainability transitions.
... Either way, if only just as the slogan innovation democracy (Hippel and. 2005), this compellingly oxymoronic evocation of directionality in a field where it is so strikingly neglected, can in itself be progressively catalytic (Rip 1987;Wynne 2002). ...
Developing earlier work, this paper explores analytic and political implications of ideas about direction in innovation. Unduly hidden in mainstream innovation and sustainability transformations literatures, crucial issues arise for responsible innovation. Although essential to both rigour and effectiveness, key realities tend to be concealed by general hegemonic forces in contemporary global colonial modernity, as well as by more specific expediencies to power and privilege in particular settings. To help resist these obscuring pressures, three contrasting (frequently conflated) meanings are distinguished. Directing innovation involves driving narrow motivating processes towards some given end. The direction of innovation concerns broader steering of pathways towards more openly chosen ends. Directionality of innovation entails grasping deeper political potentialities spanning pluralities of ends. Seriously eroding innovation policy and research alike, much current governance activity fails appropriately to focus or act on these distinctions. To assist greater policy robustness and legitimacy, this paper points to important (but often neglected) practises in each regard. To properly address social and ecological sustainability imperatives, greater attention is advocated to irreducibly political aspects of responsible innovation. This entails renewed emphasis not only on precaution, participation and accountability, but on actively supporting emancipatory struggle towards plural ‘directions for progress’ in innovation democracies.
... However, as Weber (Weber 1978) highlighted, values and beliefs may not even be held by the individuals appealing to them -the individuals constructing the legitimacy simply assume they are held widely (Konrad 2006;Stryker 1994). These assumptions about consensus might turn out to be inaccurate and lead to implicit or outright contestation about legitimacy: controversies have for good reason long served as fruitful research sites for science and technology studies scholars from theoretically diverse denominations such as the Strong Program, Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) and Actor-Network Theory (ANT) (Barnes and Bloor 1982;Barnes and Shapin 1979;Bloor 1991;Callon 1984;Collins 1983;Latour 2007;Law and Hassard 1999;Rip 1986). ...
... We use the controversy around regulation as one of the main sources of information (Rip 1986). The objectives of a regulatory option serve to identify the negative consequences, losses, etc. of the other options involved in the controversy. ...
The controversies surrounding the regulation of technology depend, among other factors, on the diversity of the regulatory objectives prioritized by the distinct social actors. These differences may also lead to controversies in the realm of regulatory science: controversies between distinct epistemic policies. As controversies are partly the result of prioritizing different objectives, comparing alternative regulatory options is a seemingly impossible endeavour. In this paper, we offer a partial solution to this problem by proposing a means of comparing different regulatory options. This proposal makes it possible to analyse and assess the different options and facilitates the adoption of compromises between the various parties to the controversy, even if it is unable to eliminate the differences in the prioritization of objectives. The case study we have used to illustrate the main ideas of this paper is the controversy surrounding the regulation of health claims in the European Union.
A quarter of a century ago, a long-term expert in the nuclear waste scene stated that “the management of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste has the deserved reputation as one of the most intractable policy issues facing the United States and other nations using nuclear reactors for electric power generation” (North, 1999, p. 751). Apart of exceptions, this statement is still true. At some points, however, there is light at the end of the tunnel if we can read the signs of the times. It will be a long hike, in steep terrain, poor visibility and with an approximate destination. We need a safe and acceptable site, tolerated by the affected parties, where a repository can be built, operated and, finally, closed down in reasonable course by a generation to come and with a clear conscience. This contribution does not present the silver bullet (which does not exist) but suggests some criteria and characteristics which have not been respected in the history of final disposal – but they should be. It needs adequate resources: stable structures, competent institutions, learning personnel (in institutions and civil society), mature and open discourse as well as sufficient time. Based on https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-6514 (Flüeler, 2024a).
In this article, we reflect on our experiences in a joint Japanese-Belgian social science research project on citizen science after Fukushima (2017-2019), which sought to identify how public authorities and scientific research communities respond to citizen-led, data-driven radiation monitoring practices. Using qualitative (auto)ethnographic methods, we shed light on opportunities and challenges that emerged in developing possible fruitful collaboration pathways with project stakeholders, particularly citizen scientists and formally-trained scientists working in radiological protection. We argue for more reflexive dialogue among all about how interactions between these stakeholders are staged, negotiated, and performed, as relations between them (and us) create openings and closings for the governance of radiation pollution and environmental problems.
Living in a society characterized by risk has distinct implications for developing countries, where addressing the socio-environmental issues within established governance structures is challenging. This study aims to investigate the risks identified by the main relevant institutions in Chile based on the narratives of their authorities and how these are configured differently according to the regions and areas involved. Using a qualitative method based on individual interviews conducted with 57 representatives of institutions present in eight regions of the country, a differentiated configuration is identified depending on the institution and the region where they perform their functions. The main findings show that (1) the narrative relevance of the risks in Chile continues to be intensely based on natural hazards, (2) there are clear regional and macro-regional differences in the configuration of socio-environmental risks, showing significant institutional complexity, and (3) the ongoing challenges with deregulated events create high-level uncertainty in matters relevant to society. It is concluded that although the country is experiencing a complex crossroads in terms of the transition towards risk policies, a challenging effort would be to combine regulatory efficiency both in traditional risk problems and in the new criteria of the global development agenda.
Vor einem Vierteljahrhundert bereits schrieb ein langjähriger Kenner der Szene, der Umgang mit (hoch)radioaktiven Abfällen "hat den verdienten Ruf, einer der ver tracktesten Politikbereiche zu sein, vor die die USA und andere Staaten mit Kernreaktoren für die Stromerzeugung gestellt sind" [North 1999]. Das stimmt, von Ausnahmen abgesehen, auch heute noch. Allerdings lässt sich an einigen Stellen Licht am Ende des Tunnels erkennen, wenn die Zeichen der Zeit erkannt werden: Es ist eine lange Wanderung, in steilem Gelände, bei schlechter Sicht und ungefährem Ziel; wir brauchen einen sicheren und akzeptablen sowie von den Betroffenen tolerierten Standort, an dem ein Lager gebaut, betrieben und innert nützlicher Frist mit gutem Gewissen von einer späteren Genera tion verschlossen werden kann. Der Beitrag zeigt nicht den Königsweg auf (den es nicht gibt), sondern einige Kriterien und Charakteristika, die in der Historie der "End lagerung" nicht beachtet wurden, aber beachtet werden müssen. Es braucht adäquate Ressourcen: stabile Strukturen, kompetente Institutionen, lernendes Personal (der Institutionen und der Zivilgesellschaft), reifen offenen Diskurs und mehr Zeit als bis 2031.
This article analyses how a recent idiom of innovation governance, ‘responsible innovation’, is enacted in practice, how this shapes innovation processes, and what aspects of innovation are left untouched. Within this idiom, funders typically focus on one point in an innovation system: researchers in projects. However, the more transformational aspirations of responsible innovation are circumscribed by this context. Adopting a mode of critique that assembles, this article considers some alternative approaches to governing the shared trajectories of science, technology, and society. Using the idea of institutional invention to focus innovation governance on four inflection points—agendas, calls, spaces, evaluation—would allow funding organizations and researchers to look ‘beyond the project’, developing new methods to unpack and reflect on assumed purposes of science, technology, and innovation, and to potentially reconfigure the institutions that condition scientific practice.
In this chapter, we argue that socio-technical controversies are conflicts to embrace and utilize, rather than to smoothen out or avoid. Building on theoretical insights from Science and Technology Studies and Philosophy of Engineering, and contextualizing these in the smart city, we highlight a threefold potential of smart city controversies to work towards more responsible development of our future cities. We argue that socio-technical controversies are promising entry points for civic engagement, ethical reflection and alternative imaginaries on the introduction of technology in cities. We support this framework by examples from global smart city projects, and suggest a ‘Designing for Controversies’ approach to embrace conflict in a constructive manner.KeywordsSocio-technical controversiesSmart cityCivic engagementEthical reflectionAlternative imaginaries
This essay attempts to describe political consciousness in collectivities. Symbolist thought, focused on the idea of “myth,” seems linked with material thought, focused on the concept of “ideology.” It is suggested that a description of political consciousness can be constructed from the structures of meaning exhibited by a society's vocabulary of “ideographs.”
Estrogen Replacement Therapy (ERT) is a widely prescribed but controversial treatment for menopausal and postmenopausal symptoms. Our research shows that the dispute over menopausal estrogens has developed quite differently in the United States and Great Britain. For each country we examine claims made by physicians, feminists and consumers, regulatory bodies, and the pharmaceutical industry, as well as the claims of researchers. For each group the United States and British position on ERT is opposite, one country favouring the therapy, the other opposing its use. Yet within each country ERT stances are not consistent: feminists oppose physician practices, and physician practice is in opposition to research conclusions. Our comparative design allows us to conclude that for each country the positions of various interests, and their systematic opposition to one another, are the outcome of political, ideological and economic relations.
Critical studies of science reject the programmatic separation between technical and social aspects of science. By analyzing the social history of controversies, the rhetoric of scientific discourse, and informal aspects of laboratory work, recent studies have attempted to demonstrate that the objective products of scientific research are fraught with social contingency. The present paper agrees that the products of scientific activity are inextricable from the social contexts of their production, but raises the further question of how the relevance of any of the potentially endless varieties of social contingency is to be established in concrete instances of scientific work. Commonly, social studies of science specify such contingent relationships by relying on the established methods of the social science disciplines, while ignoring the fact that the natural scientific disciplines studied themselves include inquiries which specify such relationships as a necessary part of their ordinary practice. The alternative recommended here is to take an ethnomethodological approach. The distinguishing feature of the latter approach is that it recognizes the analytic primacy of context-specifying activities which occur at the sites of natural scientific inquiries. A transcript of conversation in a neuroscience lab is analyzed to show how `critical inquiry' operates as a practical feature of natural science research rather than being a privilege of professional social scientists.
Focusing exclusively on the substantive use of policy analysis results in a limited assessment of the role of analysis in policymaking, particularly in a congressional setting. This article develops a two-dimensional perspective on use, incorporating a substantive-strategic dimension as well as a concrete-conceptual dimension. The importance of this perspective is demonstrated through an analysis of congressional use of two projects produced by the congressional Office of Technology Assessment, one on coal slurry pipelines and the other on residential energy conservation. Results indicate both the existence of substantive use and the importance of more strategic uses.