Scientific and technological policy issues are not and should not be exempt from the
norms of democratic governance. This article examines two major theories of democracy, analyzes their commonalities and differences, and derives criteria for evaluating
various forms of public participation in policymaking. The author argues for a new
category of participation, participatory analysis, that includes forms of participation
that satisfy democratic criteria and emphasizes the importance of learning among
participants. Different types of participatory analysis may be best suited to different kinds
of policy problems .
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arnstein, Sherry R.1971. Eight rungs on the ladder of citizen participation . In Citizen participation : Effecting community change, edited by E. S. Kahn and B. A. Passett, 69-91. New York: Praeger .
2.
Barber, Benjamin.1984. Strong democracy: Participatory politics in a new age . Berkeley: University of California Press.
3.
Brooks, Harvey, 1984. The resolution of technically intensive public policy disputes. Science, Technology & Human Values9:39-50.
4.
Cobb, Roger W., and Charles C. Elder.1972. Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda building. Baltimore, MD : Johns Hopkins University Press.
5.
Cohen, Joshua, and Joel Rogers.1983. On democracy: Toward a transformation of American society. New York: Penguin.
6.
Dahl, Robert A.1956. A preface to democratic theory. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
7.
—. 1961. Who governs: Democracy and power in an American city. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8.
—. 1966. Further reflections on the elitist theory of democracy . American Political Science Review60:296-305.
9.
—. 1967. Pluralist democracy in the United States: Conflict and consent. Chicago: Rand McNally .
10.
—. 1979. Procedural democracy. In Philosophy, polities, and society, edited by P. Laslett and J. Fishkin, 97-133. 5th ser. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
11.
—. 1982. Dilemmas of pluralist democracy: Autonomy vs. control . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
Fiorino, Daniel J.1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values15:226-43.
13.
Fischer, Frank.1990. Technocracy and the politics of expertise. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
Gilpin, Robert.1968. The intra-scientific conflict over a nuclear test ban: The problem of conflicting expertise. In The politics of science: Readings in science, technology and government, edited by William R. Nelson, 328-55. New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
Greenwood, Ted.1984. Knowledge and discretion in government regulation . New York: Praeger.
16.
Holman, Halsted R., and Diana B. Dutton, 1978. A case for public participation in science policy formation and practice. Southern California Law Review51:1505-34.
17.
Hoos, Ida R.1979. Societal aspects of technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change13:191-202.
18.
Kemeny, John G.1980. Saving American democracy: The lessons of Three Mile Island . Technology Review82:65-75.
19.
Krimsky, Sheldon.1984. Beyond technocracy: New routes for citizen involvement in social risk assessment. In Citizen participation in science policy, edited by James C. Petersen, 43-61. Amherst : University of Massachusetts Press.
20.
Laird, Frank N.1989. The decline of deference: The political context of risk communication. Risk Analysis9:543-50.
21.
—. 1990. Technocracy revisited: Knowledge, power, and the crisis of energy decision making. Industrial Crisis Quarterly4:49-61.
22.
Lakoff, Sanford A.1977. Scientists, technologists, and political power . In Science, technology, and society: A cross-disciplinary perspective , edited by Ina Speigel-Rosing and Derek de Solla Price, 355-91. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23.
Langton, Stuart.1978. Citizen participation in America: Current reflections on the state of the art. In Citizen participation in America: Essays on the state of the art, edited by Stuart Langton, 1-12. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
24.
Lindblom, Charles E.1982. Another state of mind. American Political Science Review76:9-21.
25.
—. 1983. Comment on Manley. American Political Science Review77:384-86.
26.
Lipset, Seymour Martin, and William Schneider .1983. The confidence gap: Business, labor, and government in the American mind. New York: Free Press.
27.
Lowi, Theodore.1967. The public philosophy: Interest group liberalism . American Political Science Review61:5-24.
28.
MacCrae, Duncan, Jr. 1981. Science and the formation of policy in a democracy . In Science, technology and national policy, edited by Thomas J. Kuehn and Alan L. Porter, 496-514. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
29.
Manley, John F.1983. New-pluralism: A class analysis of pluralism I and pluralism II. American Political Science Review77:368-83.
30.
National Science Board.1985. Science indicators 1985. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
31.
Nelkin, Dorothy.1975. The political impact of technical expertise. Social Studies of Science5:35-54.
32.
—. 1984. Science and technology policy and the democratic process . In Citizen participation in science policy, edited by James C. Petersen, 18-39. Amherst : University of Massachusetts Press.
33.
Nichols, Guild.1979. Technology on trial. Paris: Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation.
34.
O'Hare, Michael, Lawrence Bacow, and Debra Sanderson .1983. Facility siting and public opposition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
35.
Pateman, Carole.1970. Participation in democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
—. 1976. A contribution to the political theory of organizational democracy. In Organizational democracy: Participation and self-management , edited by G. David Garson and Michael P. Smith, 9-30. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
37.
Rawls, John A.1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA : Belnap.
38.
Rossini, Frederick A., and Alan L. Porter.1984. Public participation and professionalism in impact assessment . In Citizen participation in science policy, edited by James C. Petersen, 62-74. Amherst : University of Massachusetts Press.
39.
Schumpeter, Joseph A.1975 [1942]. Capitalism, socialism, and democracy . New York: Harper Colophon .
40.
Sclove, Richard E.1982. Decision making in a democracy. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists38:44-49.
41.
—. 1983. Energy policy and democratic theory. In Uncertain power, edited by Dorothy Zinberg , 37-68. New York: Pergamon .
42.
—. 1987. The nuts and bolts of democracy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association , Chicago, September.
43.
Somit, Albert, and Joseph Tannenhaus .1964. American political science: A profile of a discipline. New York: Atherton.
44.
Stone, Deborah A.1988. Policy paradox and political reason. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
45.
Susskind, Lawrence, and Gerard McMahon.1985. The theory and practice of negotiated rule making. Yale Journal on Regulation3:133-65.
46.
Tribe, Laurence H.1972. Policy science: Analysis orideology. In Benefit-cost and policy analysis 1972, edited by W. Niskanen, A. Harberger , R. Haveman, R. Turvey, and R. Zeckhauser, 3-47. Chicago : Aldine.
47.
—. 1973. Technology assessment and the fourth discontinuity: The limits of instrumental rationality. Southern California Law Review46:617-60.
48.
Truman, David B.1951. The government process: Political interest and public opinion. New York: Alfred A. Knopf .
49.
Walker, Jack L.1966. A reply to "Further Reflections on 'The Elitist Theory of Democracy'." American Political Science Review60:391-92.
50.
Winner, Langdon.1986. The whale and the reactor. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
