Participatory paternalism: citizens' conferences in Austrian technology governance

Abstract

Citizens' conferences as a form of participatory technology assessment (pTA) are said to increase democratic legitimacy, take up lay knowledge and improve technological solutions. Today it is part of science and technology policy rhetoric and, sometimes, practice. We confront some elements of the scholarly discussion on pTA with policy-makers' understandings of the process in Austria. Here, participation is often framed as a form of public relations and a sensor for public sentiments rather than as a forum of multiple rationalities and co-development of policy projects. This understanding can be related to underlying conceptions of democracy and the public. We conclude that governance styles would have to change before pTA could become more than a laboratory experiment.

Science–policy interactions in Austrian, Dutch, and Swiss climate policy: a comparative account

“…In Switzerland, departmental research does not hold such a prominent position because of the militia system, that is, citizens using their professional skills to work part-time in public offices without pay, and a tradition of outsourcing expertise to independent research institutes (Linder, 2009). Public participation in and public debate about science-policy interactions can only be found to a very limited extent in Austria (Degelsegger & Torgersen, 2011), whereas the Netherlands and Switzerland have a well-established tradition of participatory policy-making in various policy domains. In the Netherlands, for example, consensus conferences and citizen juries bring together a broad spectrum of scientific and non-scientific actors (Halffman & Hoppe, 2005).…”

One size fits all? On the institutionalization of participatory technology assessment and its interconnection with national ways of policy-making: the cases of Switzerland and Austria

“…In this context, Degelsegger and Torgersen (2011) emphasize the significance of “deeply held beliefs and engrained practices of political decision-making” (391). Drawing on political practices in the regulation of various innovative areas of biomedicine, such as transplantation, xenotransplantation, human embryonic stem cell research, pre-implantation genetic diagnostics (PGD) (Griessler 2010), genetic testing (Griessler and Lehner 2010) and prenatal diagnostics (PND, Griessler 2012), it will be argued that pTA faces serious difficulties in Austria because of dominant political practices and assumptions about policy-making and the public.…”

“…pTA was only adopted in the mid-1990s, and researchers agree that pTA exercises remained infrequent (Grabner et al 2002; Bogner 2004; Nentwich et al 2006; Felt et al 2006; Degelsegger and Torgersen 2011). pTA processes were methodologically diverse and included mediation processes (Grabner et al 2002), consensus conferences (Bogner 2004; Grabner et al 2002: 61 ff., Felt et al 2006: 116 ff.…”

“…396). For these reasons, Austrian policy-makers avoid giving pTA a role to “encourage discussion“(Kronberger and Kerbe 2010: 19), to further participation in policy-making and to increase democratic legitimacy by furthering the “inclusion of alternative rationalities” (Degelsegger and Torgersen 2011: 398). In contrast, they perceive pTA as a means “to inform and convince” the public (Degelsegger and Torgersen 2011: 398).…”

“…However, both countries had quite different experiences. Whereas several pTAs have been carried out in Switzerland so far (Pfersdorf 2008; Crettaz von Roten 2011), Austrian pTAs have remained infrequent (Grabner et al 2002; Bogner 2004; Nentwich et al 2006; Felt et al 2006; Degelsegger and Torgersen 2011). …”