opening up' and 'closing down': Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology
Abstract
Discursive deference in the governance of science and technology is rebalancing from expert analysis toward participatory deliberation. Linear, scientistic conceptions of innovation are giving ground to more plural, socially situated understandings. Yet, growing recognition of social agency in technology choice is countered by persistently deterministic notions of technological progress. This article addresses this increasingly stark disjuncture. Distinguishing between “appraisal” and “commitment” in technology choice, it highlights contrasting implications of normative, instrumental, and substantive imperatives in appraisal. Focusing on the role of power, it identifies key commonalities transcending the analysis/participation dichotomy. Each is equally susceptible to instrumental framing for variously weak and strong forms of justification. To address the disjuncture, it is concluded that greater appreciation is required—in both analytic and participatory appraisal—to facilitating the opening up (rather than the closing down) of governance commitments on science and technology.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Opening up deliberation supports collective problem framing and prevents premature closure around singular solutions.
“opening up' deliberation to support collective problem framing and prevent premature closure around singular solutions [52]”
From Reimagining Open Source and Openness in AI: Co-Creating Responsible Technological Futures (2026) · cites this paper as [52]
Cites
The social shaping of technology
Williams, R., & Edge, D. (1996) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/0048-7333(96)00885-2 · Cited by 917 · see citing works
Deliberate futures: precaution and progress in social choice of sustainable technology
Stirling, A. (2007) · Sustainable Development · doi:10.1002/sd.347 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Developing a framework for responsible innovation
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008 · Cited by 3,184 · see citing works
Collingridge and the dilemma of control: Towards responsible and accountable innovation
Genus, A., & Stirling, A. (2018) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.012 · Cited by 301 · see citing works
Self-citationTechnical knowledge, discursive spaces and politics at the science–policy interface
Wesselink, A., Buchanan, K. S., Georgiadou, Y., & Turnhout, E. (2013) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.12.008 · Cited by 224 · see citing works
Scholz, R. W., & Steiner, G. (2015) · Sustainability Science · doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0327-3 · Cited by 192 · see citing works
Futures literacy and the diversity of the future
Mangnus, A. C., Oomen, J., Vervoort, J. M., & Hajer, M. A. (2021) · Futures · doi:10.1016/j.futures.2021.102793 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
Leydesdorff, L., Wouters, P., & Bornmann, L. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2150-8 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
Preston, C. J. (2013) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.198 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Green tides in Brittany: What can we learn about niche–regime interactions?
Diaz, M., Darnhofer, I., Darrot, C., & Beuret, J.-E. (2013) · Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions · doi:10.1016/j.eist.2013.04.002 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
McKinnon, C. (2019) · Environmental Politics · doi:10.1080/09644016.2018.1450344 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Adnan, N., Nordin, S. M., Rahman, I., & Noor, A. (2018) · World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development · doi:10.1108/wjstsd-11-2016-0062 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Schiff, D. S. (2023) · Review of Policy Research · doi:10.1111/ropr.12535 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Why do we still need participatory technology assessment?
Hennen, L. (2012) · Poiesis & Praxis · doi:10.1007/s10202-012-0122-5 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Ethics of quantification: illumination, obfuscation and performative legitimation
Sareen, S., Saltelli, A., & Rommetveit, K. (2020) · Palgrave Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-020-0396-5 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Siebenhüner, B. (2018) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.07.011 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
- Authors
- Stirling, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Sussex (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Stirling, Andy
- ORCID
- Stirling, Andy
- Venue
- Science, Technology, & Human Values
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-11-12
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 262-294
- ISSN
- 0162-2439 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8251
- OpenAlex
- W2120561827
- Cited by
- 1,567
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 129 · 2025: 116 · 2024: 119 · 2023: 87 · 2022: 104 · 2021: 119 · 2020: 88 · 2019: 90 · 2018: 91 · 2017: 88 · 2016: 93 · 2015: 87 · 2014: 83 · 2013: 79 · 2012: 71
- FWCI
- 79.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Science Technology & Human Values (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- Science Technology & Human Values
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/D004594/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Innovation, Technology, and Society
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
- Keywords
- technology selection, participatory deliberation, expert analysis, social agency, technological determinism, justification
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
