The politics of innovation involves displacements between various interrelated settings ranging from the context of design to the context of use. This variety of settings and their particular qualities raise questions about the democratic implications of displacements, which have been addressed within science and technology studies for decades from different perspectives and along various theoretical strands. This article distinguishes five different traditions of conceptualizing the relation between technological innovation and democracy: an intentionalist, a proceduralist, an actor—network, an interpretivist, and a performative perspective. They differ in their concepts of “technology,” “politics,” and “democracy”; they imply different roles for the analyst and they suggest or urge other political means. It is suggested that spelling out the differences and similarities between the five perspectives creates the possibility to overcome the limitations of any particular perspective of technology and democracy.
Akrich, M.1992. The description of technical objects. In Shaping technology/building society: studies in sociotechnical change , ed. W. E. Bijker and J. Law, 205-24. London: The MIT Press.
2.
---. 1995. User representations: Practices, methods and sociology . In Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment, ed. A. Rip, T. J. Misa, and J. Schot, 167-84. London and New York : Pinter Publishers.
3.
Amsterdamska, O.1990. Surely you are joking, monsieur Latour. Science, Technology, & Human Values15 (4): 495-504.
4.
Bachrach, P., and M.S. Baratz.1962. Two faces of power. American Political Science Review (56): 947-52.
5.
Bijker, W.E.1997. Démocratisation de la culture technologique. La Revue nouvelle CVI9:37-47.
6.
---. 1999. Towards politicization of technological culture: Constructivist STS studies and democracy. In Science, technology and society: International symposium, ed. H. Ansal and D. Çalisir, 37-47. Istanbul : IstanbulTechnical University .
7.
Bovens, M., W. Derksen, W. Witteveen, P. Kalma, and F. Becker.1995. De verplaatsing van de politiek: Een agenda voor democratische vernieuwing. Amsterdam: Wiarda Beckman Stichting.
8.
Boyle, G.,D. Elliot , and R. Roy, eds. 1977. The politics of technology. London : Longman.
9.
Calder, N.1969. Technopolis: Social control of the uses of science . London: MacGibbon & Kee.
10.
Foucault, M.1975. Surveillir et punir. Naissance de la prison. Paris: Gallimard.
11.
Garrety, K., and R. Badham.2004. User-centered design and the normative politics of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values29 (2): 191-212.
12.
Gjøen, H., and M. Hård.2002. Cultural politics in action: Developing user scripts in relation to the electric vehicle. Science, Technology, & Human Values27 (2): 262-81.
13.
Gomart, E., and M. Hajer.2003. Is that politics? For an inquiry into forms in contemporary politics. In Social studies of science and technology: Looking back ahead, ed. B. Joerges and H. Nowotny, 33-61. Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic Publishers.
14.
Hajer, M.A.1995. The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15.
---. 2005. Setting the stage: A dramaturgy of policy deliberation . Administration & Society36 (6): 624-47.
16.
Halffman, W.2003. Boundaries of regulatory science. Chapter 9: Technocracy versus democracy? PhD diss., University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
17.
Hamlett, P.W.2003. Technology theory and deliberative democracy. Science, Technology, & Human Values28 (1): 112-40.
18.
Harbers, H.1996. Politiek van de technologie. Kennis en Methode3:308-15.
19.
---. 1998. Technologie en politiek: Over ficties van sturing en democratisering in een technologische cultuur. Socialisme & Democratie1:3-9.
20.
Illich, I.1973. Tools for conviviality. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
21.
Joerges, B.1999. Do politics have artefacts? Social Studies of Science29 (3): 411-31.
22.
Latour, B.1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
---. 1988. How to write The Prince for machines as well as for machinations . In Technology and social change, ed. B. Elliot, 20-43. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
24.
---. 1991a. Technology is society made durable. In A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination, ed. J. Law.London: Routledge.
25.
---. 1991b. Wij zijn nooit modern geweest. Amsterdam : Van Gennep. Translation of Nous n'avons jamais été modernes.
26.
---. 2004. Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into politics . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27.
Lefort, C.1992. Het democratisch tekort: Over de noodzakelijke onbepaaldheid van de democratie. Meppel: Boom .
28.
Levidow, L.1998. Democratizing technology-or technologizing democracy? Regulating agricultural biotechnology in Europe. Technology in Society20 (2): 211-26.
29.
Lukes, S.1974. Power: A radical view. London : MacMillan Education.
30.
Mannheim, K.1936. Ideology and utopia. New York : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
31.
Mol, A.2002. The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice . Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.
32.
Nahuis, R.2007. The politics of innovation in public transport: Issues, settings and displacements. Utrecht: KNAG.
33.
Noble, D.F.1979. America by design: Science, technology, and the rise of corporate capitalism. Oxford University Press, USA.
34.
Pestre, D.2004. Thirty years of science studies. Knowledge, society and the political. History and Technology20 (4): 351-69.
Pinch, T.J., and W.E. Bijker.1987. The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In The social construction of technological systems, ed. W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, and T. J. Pinch, 17-50. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
Rip, A., and J.W. Schot.2002. Identifying loci for influencing the dynamics of technological development. In Shaping technology, guiding policy, ed. K. H. Sørensen and R. Williams, 155-72. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
38.
Rip, A., T.J. Misa, and J. Schot.1995. Constructive Technology Assessment: A new paradigm for managing technology in society. In Managing technology in society, ed. A. Rip, T. J. Misa, and J. Schot, 1-14. London: Pinter Publishers.
39.
Rowe, G., and L.J. Frewer.2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values25 (1): 3-29.
40.
Rowe, G., R. Marsh, and L.J. Frewer.2004. Evaluation of a deliberative conference . Science, Technology, & Human Values29 (1): 88-121.
41.
Salomon, J.J.2000. Science, technology and democracy. Minerva38:33-51.
42.
Schattschneider, E.E.1960. The semisovereign people. Hinsdale, Illinois: The Dryden Press.
43.
Schot, J.1996. De inzet van contructief technology assessment . Kennis en Methode3:265-93.
44.
Sclove, R.E.1995. Democracy and technology. New York : The Guilford Press.
45.
Silverstone, R., and E. Hirsch.1992. Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces. London and New York: Routledge.
46.
Smits, R., and J. Leyten.1991. Technology assessment: Waakhond of speurhond?Zeist: Kerkebosch.
47.
Summerton, J.2004. Do electrons have politics? Constructing user identities in Swedish electricity. Science, Technology, & Human Values29 (4): 486-511.
48.
Winner, L.1980. Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus9:121-36.
49.
---. 1986. The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
50.
Woolgar, S.1991. The turn to technology in social studies of science . Science, Technology, & Human Values16 (1): 20-51.
51.
Woolgar, S., and G. Cooper.1999. Do artefacts have ambivalence? Moses' bridges, Winner's bridges and other urban legends in S&TS. Social Studies of Science29 (3): 433-49.
52.
Wynne, B.1995. Technology assessment and reflexive social learning: Observations from the risk field. In Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment, ed. A. Rip, T. J. Misa , and J. Schot, 19-36. London and New York: Pinter Publishers .
53.
Zimmerman, A.D.1995. Toward a more democratic ethic of technological governance . Science, Technology, & Human Values20 (1): 86-107.
