Suchergebnisse

This book originates from the work of contributors to initiatives and global networks promoting and pursuing lines of enquiry that recognise and probe relationships between sustainable consumption, design and production, and the implications of those relationships for new economic activity and the way we live and govern ourselves. It features contributions from social scientists (e.g. from the fields of innovation studies, geography, environmental policy and sociology) and practitioners, serving to generate a short-list of research perspectives and topics around which future research and actions in practice will be orientated. The book consists of ten chapters divided into three parts, focusing on: perspectives/methodological insights; empirical work integrating consumption and production; and site-specific practitioner-oriented case studies. The conclusion examines the key aspects of policy, research and practical implications.

In this paper I set the emergence of 'coinquiry' approaches to public engagement in the context of the apparent inability of conventional arrangements to contribute effectively to the transition to environmental sustainability. I explicate characteristics of coinquiry, which is distinguished from 'upstream engagement', in so doing developing criteria with which to evaluate its application. Examining documentary sources, I identify and critically review projects funded by the UK Beacons for Public Engagement on the topic of environment and sustainability. The conclusion highlights the factors limiting the capacity of the Beacon initiative—and possibly that of similar national initiatives to be undertaken in the future—to attain stated objectives relating to public engagement with environment and sustainability matters and the practice of coinquiry.

The paper critically reviews the work of David Collingridge in the light of contemporary concerns about responsibility and accountability in innovation, public engagement with science and technology, and the role of scientific expertise in technology policy. Given continued interest in his thoughts on the 'social control of technology', and the 'dilemma of control', this attention is both timely and overdue. The paper illuminates a mismatch between the prevalence of citations to Collingridge's work on the dilemma of control in the literature on responsible innovation, and the depth of engagement with his arguments. By considering neglected aspects of Collingridge's substantive, methodological and philosophical analysis, important implications can be drawn for theory and practice relating to the governance of innovation and co-evolution between technology and society. The paper helps to improve understandings of wider political contexts for responsible innovation, especially in relation to anticipatory, participatory and institutional aspects of governance.

There is a growing body of literature on responsible innovation (RI). RI is prominent in debates and policies regarding the governance of research and innovation, particularly in the EU and USA. The paper brings together sociologically-informed institutional analysis and critical discourse analysis into a discourse-institutional perspective, which is applied to review the emergence of and scholarly contributions to literature on RI. It generates insights into the role of language use in the institutionalisation of RI from detailed analysis of a foundational text. The paper identifies evidence for the institutionalisation of RI, how this has been accomplished and by whom. The paper considers opportunities for and limitations of RI research and policy in connection with its potential to foster effective anticipatory governance of science and innovation while facilitating inclusive deliberation in society. The conclusion suggests that RI is a developing area of research and practice in which there are dominant perspectives, practices and actors, which combine to inhibit the building of a truly responsive, inclusive and reflexive approach to governing innovation.

The paper critically reviews the work of David Collingridge in the light of contemporary concerns about responsibility and accountability in innovation, public engagement with science and technology, and the role of scientific expertise in technology policy. Given continued interest in his thoughts on the 'social control of technology', and the 'dilemma of control', this attention is both timely and overdue. The paper illuminates a mismatch between the prevalence of citations to Collingridge's work on the dilemma of control in the literature on responsible innovation, and the depth of engagement with his arguments. By considering neglected aspects of Collingridge's substantive, methodological and philosophical analysis, important implications can be drawn for theory and practice relating to the governance of innovation and co-evolution between technology and society. The paper helps to improve understandings of wider political contexts for responsible innovation, especially in relation to anticipatory, participatory and institutional aspects of governance.

The paper highlights shortcomings in the contribution of qualitative social sciences and humanities (SSH) research to tackling challenges connected with energy and climate change. These shortcomings are illustrated based on analysis of data gathered in relation to EU (e.g. Horizon 2020; FP7) and European national research funding and energy policy. The paper finds that a techno-economic energy imaginary continues to dominate European energy systems and governs expectations of energy research and its conduct, the integration of SSH with energy policy-making and the framing and foci of policy. A more nuanced, context-sensitive approach is presented as an alternative 'practices and cultural change' energy imaginary. This emphasises attention to social practices relevant to energy use, interdisciplinarity and the coproduction of knowledge with diverse actors. Adoption of such an imaginary can help to enhance policy integration of SSH and the contribution of SSH to ameliorating energy and climate change challenges while providing insight into why gaps occur between (supra)national energy policy and local practices.

The paper highlights shortcomings in the contribution of qualitative social sciences and humanities (SSH) research to tackling challenges connected with energy and climate change. These shortcomings are illustrated based on analysis of data gathered in relation to EU (e.g. Horizon 2020; FP7) and European national research funding and energy policy. The paper finds that a techno-economic energy imaginary continues to dominate European energy systems and governs expectations of energy research and its conduct, the integration of SSH with energy policy-making and the framing and foci of policy. A more nuanced, context-sensitive approach is presented as an alternative 'practices and cultural change' energy imaginary. This emphasises attention to social practices relevant to energy use, interdisciplinarity and the coproduction of knowledge with diverse actors. Adoption of such an imaginary can help to enhance policy integration of SSH and the contribution of SSH to ameliorating energy and climate change challenges while providing insight into why gaps occur between (supra)national energy policy and local practices. ; Peer reviewed

The paper highlights shortcomings in the contribution of qualitative social sciences and humanities (SSH) research to tackling challenges connected with energy and climate change. These shortcomings are illustrated based on analysis of data gathered in relation to EU (e.g. Horizon 2020; FP7) and European national research funding and energy policy. The paper finds that a techno-economic energy imaginary continues to dominate European energy systems and governs expectations of energy research and its conduct, the integration of SSH with energy policy-making and the framing and foci of policy. A more nuanced, context-sensitive approach is presented as an alternative 'practices and cultural change' energy imaginary. This emphasises attention to social practices relevant to energy use, interdisciplinarity and the coproduction of knowledge with diverse actors. Adoption of such an imaginary can help to enhance policy integration of SSH and the contribution of SSH to ameliorating energy and climate change challenges while providing insight into why gaps occur between (supra)national energy policy and local practices.