Controversies as governing processes in technology assessment

Cambrosio, Alberto; Limoges, Camille

doi:10.1080/09537329108524067

Cited by 27 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The emergence of health innovations often generates heated debate in scientific and medical communities as well as strong reactions from the patient and social groups involved in their adoption. While some analyses suggest that professional groups pursue their own vested interests, it is also important to examine epistemological issues and the way in which healthcare providers frame the social desirability of controversial practices (Cambrosio and Limoges 1991). More specifically, medical specialists occupy a unique position in the process of innovation adoption (Moran and Alexander 1997).…”

Section: Exploring the Views Of Medical Specialists Regarding Controvmentioning

confidence: 99%

How medical specialists appraise three controversial health innovations: scientific, clinical and social arguments

Lehoux

Denis

Rock

et al. 2010

Sociology of Health &Amp; Illness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medical specialists play a pivotal role in health innovation evaluation and policy making. Their influence derives not only from their expertise, but also from their social status and the power of their professional organisations. Little is known, however, about how medical specialists determine what makes a health innovation desirable and why. Our qualitative study investigated the views of 28 medical specialists and experts from Quebec and Ontario (Canada) on three controversial innovations: electroconvulsive therapy, prostate-specific antigen screening and prenatal screening for Down's syndrome. Our findings indicate that the scientific, clinical and social arguments of medical specialists combine to create a relatively consistent narrative for each innovation. Our comparative analysis suggests that these narratives bring about a 'soft' resolution to controversies, which relies on a more or less tacit understanding of the social desirability of innovations and which sets the stage for their routinisation. Such an unpacking of medical specialists' arguments both for and against new technologies is needed because such arguments may easily be considered authoritative and because there are few forums for debating the social desirability of innovations not generally deemed to be highly controversial.

show abstract

Section: Exploring the Views Of Medical Specialists Regarding Controvmentioning

confidence: 99%

How medical specialists appraise three controversial health innovations: scientific, clinical and social arguments

Lehoux

Denis

Rock

et al. 2010

Sociology of Health &Amp; Illness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By subscribing to different varieties of symmetrical thinking, scientific facts and technological artefacts are conceived as never self-evident and as continually remaining open to fresh interpretation. Targeting the conventional ideals of expert consensus and context-free rationality many STS scholars have instead pointed to the potentially positive influence of controversy in promoting social learning and more comprehensive processes of technology assessment (Mazur, 1981;Rip, 1986;Cambrosio and Limoges, 1991;Callon et al, 2009).…”

Section: Valuing Controversymentioning

confidence: 99%

Technological Fix or Divisible Object of Collective Concern? Histories of Conflict over the Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste in Sweden and France

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science and technology studies (STS) has cultivated a positive vision of technological controversies. By raising new issues to address, controversies are seen as generating more thorough and exhaustive processes of technology assessment. However, the ability to view controversies in this light remains dependent upon how technology is collectively imagined and understood. If it is envisioned as a classic technological fix then broader controversy is just what is intended to be overcome, not positively indulged. Albert Hirschman's distinction between divisible and non-divisible conflicts captures such varying evaluations of controversy. In particular, it helps analyse how the long-standing fix of geological disposal of nuclear waste has been persistently defended as a non-negotiable object of technological concerna recipe for escaping controversy by permanently isolating nuclear waste from the biosphere. Comparing the Swedish and French programmes for the geological disposal of nuclear waste shows how defending the technological integrity of a non-divisible disposal concept has remained an institutional fixation for Swedish nuclear waste management for over 30 years. In contrast, legislative demands for a reversible disposal concept introduced in France in the late 1990s have arguably served to unravel a technological fix into a divisible object of collective concern.

show abstract

“…Bien que l'expertise scientifique soit presque toujours mobilisée dans l'histoire respective à chaque innovation, le cadrage de leur désirabilité collective s'opère à travers des compromis établis entre les diverses connaissances expérientielles qui sont mises en circulation. C'est pourquoi, tel que la littérature sur les sciences et les technologies l'a déjà souligné, la rationalité scientifique explique assez peu, en fait, la dynamique par laquelle une controverse évolue (Cambrosio et Limoges, 1991).…”

Section: Observations Transversales Aux Trois Cas : Le Rétrécissementunclassified

Épistémologies civiles et institutionnalisation de trois technologies médicales controversées

Lehoux

Hivon

Fattal

2011

socsoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Controversies as governing processes in technology assessment

Cited by 27 publications

References 3 publications

How medical specialists appraise three controversial health innovations: scientific, clinical and social arguments

How medical specialists appraise three controversial health innovations: scientific, clinical and social arguments

Technological Fix or Divisible Object of Collective Concern? Histories of Conflict over the Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste in Sweden and France

Épistémologies civiles et institutionnalisation de trois technologies médicales controversées

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About