Narrative, Nanotechnology And The Accomplishment Of Public Responses: A Response To Thorstensen

dc.creatorKearnes M.
dc.creatorMacnaghten P.
dc.creatorDavies S.R.
dc.date2014
dc.date2015-06-25T17:54:37Z
dc.date2015-11-26T14:35:48Z
dc.date2015-06-25T17:54:37Z
dc.date2015-11-26T14:35:48Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-28T21:39:16Z
dc.date.available2018-03-28T21:39:16Z
dc.identifier
dc.identifierNanoethics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, v. 8, n. 3, p. 241 - 250, 2014.
dc.identifier18714757
dc.identifier10.1007/s11569-014-0209-7
dc.identifierhttp://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84914687583&partnerID=40&md5=12a3979ae025ec8c9ba19d43ec96557e
dc.identifierhttp://www.repositorio.unicamp.br/handle/REPOSIP/86728
dc.identifierhttp://repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/86728
dc.identifier2-s2.0-84914687583
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1248483
dc.descriptionIn this paper, we respond to a critique by Erik Thorstensen of the ‘Deepening Ethical Engagement and Participation in Emerging Nanotechnologies’ (DEEPEN) project concerning its ‘realist’ treatment of narrative, its restricted analytical framework and resources, its apparent confusion in focus and its unjustified contextualisation and overextension of its findings. We show that these criticisms are based on fairly serious misunderstandings of the DEEPEN project, its interdisciplinary approachand its conceptual context. Having responded to Thorstensen’s criticisms, we take the opportunity to clarify and develop our approach to narrative. We articulate the need for novel, theoretically robust approaches to the formation of public attitudes which transcend the limitations of both survey-based approaches—which remain wedded to methodological individualism and which presume that individuals hold distinct and relatively stable attitudes and preferences—and interactionist approaches to public talk, which focus too strongly on individuals-in-interaction as reasoning agents and which ignore the constitutive role of culture and discourse in the formation of public opinion. We suggest that our use of narrative can help to better understand the process through which public attitudes to emerging technology develop out of interactive an engagement with wider cultural arguments and accounts of  science and technology. We finish by pointing to parallel developments in social thought—from Charles Taylor’s treatment of social imaginaries to recent developments in post-Bourdieuian cultural sociology—as related projects in understanding the cultural resources and grammars that provide the conceptual infrastructure for modern social life.
dc.description8
dc.description3
dc.description241
dc.description250
dc.descriptionFerrari, A., Developments in the debate on nanoethics: traditional approaches and the need for new kinds of analysis (2010) NanoEthics, 4 (2), pp. 27-52
dc.descriptionFerrari, A., Alfred, A., Beyond conversation: some lessons for nanoethics (2010) NanoEthics, 4 (2), pp. 171-181
dc.descriptionKearnes, M.B., Rip, A., The emerging governance landscape of nanotechnology (2009) Jenseits von regulierung: Zum politischen umgang mit der nanotechnologie, , Gammel S, Lösch A, Nordmann A, (eds), Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Berlin
dc.descriptionShelley-Egan, C., The ambivalence of promising technology (2010) NanoEthics, 4 (2), pp. 183-189
dc.descriptionShelley-Egan, C., Davies, S.R., Nano-industry operationalizations of ‘responsibility’: charting diversity in the enactment of responsibility (2013) Rev Policy Res, 30 (5), pp. 588-604
dc.descriptionCarvalho, A., Nunes, J.A., Technology, methodology and intervention: performing nanoethics in Portugal (2013) NanoEthics, 7 (2), pp. 149-160
dc.descriptionLaw, J., (2004) After method: mess in social science research, , Routledge, London
dc.descriptionFitzgerald, D., Littlefield, M.L., Knudsen, K.J., Tonks, J., Dietz, M.J., Ambivalence, equivocation and the politics of experimental knowledge: a transdisciplinary neuroscience encounter (2014) Soc Stud Sci, 44 (5), pp. 701-721
dc.descriptionBalmer, A.S., Bulpin, K.J., Left to their own devices: post-ELSI, ethical equipment and the international genetically engineered machine (iGEM) competition (2013) Biogeosciences, 8, pp. 311-335
dc.descriptionBalmer AS, Marris C, Calvert J, Molyneux-Hodgson S, Kearnes M, Bulpin K, Mackenzie A, Schyfter P, Frow E, Martin P (2014 forthcoming) Reflections on working in post-elsi spaces: taking roles in interdisciplinary collaborations. Science and Technology Studies (the EASST journalCalvert, J., Doorn, N., Schuurbiers, D., van de Poel, I., Gorman, M.E., Collaboration as a research method? Navigating social scientific involvement in synthetic biology. In (2013) Early engagement and new technologies: opening up the laboratory. Springer, Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, Volume 16, Dordrech, pp. 175-194
dc.descriptionDupuy, J.-P., The narratology of lay ethics (2010) NanoEthics, 4 (2), pp. 153-170
dc.descriptionMacnaghten, P., Davies, S., Kearnes, M.B., Narrative and public engagement: some findings from the DEEPEN project (2010) Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies: options for framing public policies, pp. 13-29. , Schomberg R, Davies S, (eds), European Commission, Brussels
dc.descriptionLaw, J., Urry, J., Enacting the social (2004) Econ Soc, 33 (3), pp. 390-410
dc.descriptionLury, C., Wakeford, N., (2012) Inventive methods: the happening of the social, , (eds), Routledge, Abingdon
dc.descriptionLaw, J., The device: the social life of methods (2013) Special issue of The Journal of Cultural Economy, 6 (3)
dc.descriptionBillig, M., (1987) Arguing and thinking: a rhetorical approach to social psychology, , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
dc.descriptionCameron, D., (2001) Working with spoken discourse, , Sage, London
dc.descriptionHeller, A., European master narratives about freedom (2005) Handbook of contemporary european social theory, pp. 257-265. , Delanty G, (ed), Routledge, London
dc.descriptionBlumenberg, H., (2010) Paradigms for a metaphorology translated Robert Savage, , Cornell University Press, Ithaca
dc.descriptionBlumenberg, H., Work on myth. MIT Press (1988) Translated R, , Wallace, Princeton
dc.descriptionNora, P., Between memory and history: les lieux de mémoire (1989) Representations, 26, pp. 7-24
dc.descriptionArendt, H., (1991) On revolution, , Penguin, Harmondsworth
dc.descriptionLévi-Strauss, C., (1966) The savage mind, , University of Chicago Press, Chicago
dc.descriptionDavies, S.R., Macnaghten, P., Reconfiguring responsibility: lessons for public policy (Part 1 of the report on Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology), , Durham University, Durham
dc.descriptionMiller, D., (2013) Tales from Facebook, , Wiley, Chichester
dc.descriptionTurkle, S., (2011) Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other, , Basic Books, New York
dc.descriptionKearnes, M., Wynne, B., On nanotechnology and ambivalence: the politics of enthusiasm (2007) NanoEthics, 1 (2), pp. 131-142
dc.descriptionDavies, S.R., Macnaghten, P., Narratives of mastery and resistance: lay ethics of nanotechnology (2010) NanoEthics, 4 (2), pp. 141-151
dc.descriptionDavies, S., Kearnes, M., Macnaghten, M., All things weird and scary’: nanotechnology, theology, and religious affiliations (2009) Cult Relig, 10 (2), pp. 201-220
dc.descriptionKearnes, M.B., Chaos and control: nanotechnology and the politics of emergence (2006) Paragraph, 29 (2), pp. 57-80
dc.descriptionKearnes, M., Macnaghten, P., Wilsdon, J., (2006) Governing at the nanoscale, , People Policies and Emerging Technologies, London
dc.descriptionDavies, S., How we talk when we talk about nano: the future in laypeople’s talk (2011) Futures, 43 (3), pp. 317-326
dc.descriptionMacnaghten, P., Animals in their nature: a case study on public attitudes to animals, genetic modification and ‘nature’ (2004) Sociology, 38 (3), pp. 533-551
dc.descriptionMacnaghten, P., Grove-White, R., Jacobs, M., Public perceptions and sustainability in Lancashire: indicators, institutions (1995) and participation, , A report by the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change commissioned by Lancashire County Council, Lancaster
dc.descriptionMyers, G., Macnaghten, P., Rhetorics of environmental sustainability: commonplaces and places (1998) Environ Plan A, 30, pp. 333-353
dc.descriptionMacnaghten, P., Urry, J., (1998) Contested natures, , Sage, London
dc.descriptionLee, C.J., Scheufele, D.A., Lewenstein, B.V., Public attitudes toward emerging technologies—examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology (2005) Sci Commun, 27 (2), pp. 240-267
dc.descriptionScheufele, D.A., Lewenstein, B.V., The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies (2005) J Nanoparticle Res, 7 (6), pp. 659-667
dc.descriptionProctor, J.D., The meaning of global environmental change: retheorising culture in human dimensions research (1998) Glob Environ Chang, 8 (3), pp. 227-248
dc.descriptionBrossard, D., Scheufele, D.A., Kim, E., Lewenstein, B.V., Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology (2009) Public Underst Sci, 18 (5), pp. 546-558
dc.descriptionGaskell, G., Ten Eyck, T., Jackson, J., Veltri, G., Public attitudes to nanotech in Europe and the United States (2004) Nat Mater, 3 (8), p. 496
dc.descriptionScheufele, D.A., Corley, E.A., Shih, T.-J., Dalrymple, K.E., Ho, S.S., Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States (2009) Nat Nanotechnol, 4, pp. 91-94
dc.descriptionStrauss, A.L., Social worlds and their segmentation processes (1984) Stud Symb Interact, 5, pp. 123-139
dc.descriptionStrauss, A.L., (1987) Qualitative analysis for social scientists, , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
dc.descriptionGarfinkel, H., (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology, , Prentice Hall, New Jersey
dc.descriptionGoffman, E., (1981) Forms of talk, , University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadephia
dc.descriptionGoffman, E., (1974) Frame analysis: an essay on the organisation of the experience, , Harvard University Press, Cambridge
dc.descriptionLynch, M., (1993) Scientific practice and ordinary action: ethnomethodology and social studies of science, , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
dc.descriptionAustin, J.L., (1962) How to do things with words, , Oxford University Press, Oxford
dc.descriptionHoffman, M., Linell, P., Lindh-Åstrand, L., Kjellgren, K.I., Risk talk: rhetorical strategies in consultations on hormone replacement therapy (2003) Health Risk Soc, 5 (2), pp. 139-154
dc.descriptionHorlick-Jones, T., Informal logics of risk: contingency and modes of practical reasoning (2005) J Risk Res, 8 (3), pp. 253-272
dc.descriptionHorlick-Jones, T., Prades, A., On interpretative risk perception research: some reflections on its origins
dc.descriptionits nature
dc.descriptionand its possible applications in risk communication practice (2009) Health Risk Soc, 11 (5), pp. 409-430
dc.descriptionHorlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Kitzinger, J., Bricolage in action: learning about, making sense of, and discussing, issues about genetically modified crops and food (2007) Health Risk Soc, 9 (1), pp. 83-103
dc.descriptionSarangi, S., Bennett, K., Howell, L., Clarke, A., ‘Relatively speaking’: relativisation of genetic risk in counselling for predictive testing (2003) Health Risk Soc, 5 (2), pp. 155-170
dc.descriptionWall, E., Structure of meaning and sense-making of risk: an operationalisation of sense-making tested by grouping individuals according to their structure of meaning (2011) J Risk Res, 14 (6), pp. 735-755
dc.descriptionHorlick-Jones, T., On the signature of new technologies: sociality, materiality and practical reasoning (2007) Risk and the public acceptability of new technologies, , Flynn R, Bellaby P, (eds), Palgrave, Basingstoke
dc.descriptionCallon, M., Lascoumes, P., Barthe, Y., (2009) Acting in an uncertain world: an essay on technical democracy, , The MIT Press, Cambridge
dc.descriptionBijker, W.E., (1995) Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: toward a theory of sociotechnical change, , MIT Press, Cambridge
dc.descriptionBijker, W.E., Law, J., (1992) Shaping technology/building society, , (eds), MIT Press, Cambridge
dc.descriptionLaw, J., Hassard, J., (1999) Actor network theory and after, , (eds), Blackwell, Oxford
dc.descriptionFischer, M.M.J., (2003) Emergent forms of life and the anthropological voice, , Duke University Press, Durham
dc.descriptionJasanoff, S., (2005) Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States, , Princeton University Press, Princeton
dc.descriptionMarcus, G.E., (1995) Technoscientific imaginaries: conversations, profiles and memoirs, , (ed), University of Chicago Press, Chicago
dc.descriptionJasanoff, S., Kim, S.-H., Sperling, S., Sociotechnical imaginaries and science and technology policy: a cross-national comparison (2007) Harvard University, , Research report, Cambridge, M.A
dc.descriptionTaylor, C., (2004) Modern social imaginaries, , Duke University Press, Durham
dc.descriptionMacnaghten, P., Researching technoscientific concerns in-the-making: narrative structures, public responses and emerging nanotechnologies (2010) Environ Plan A, 42, pp. 23-37
dc.descriptionAlexander, A., Giesen, B., Mast, J., (2006) Social performance: symbolic action, cultural pragmatics, and ritual, , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
dc.descriptionLamont, M., Camic, C., (2011) Gross N (eds), , Social knowledge in the making, vol University of Chicago Press, Chicago
dc.descriptionLamont, M., Thévenot, L., (2000) Rethinking comparative cultural sociology: repertoires of evaluation in France and the United States, , (eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
dc.descriptionSchatzki, T., Knorr-Cetina, K., von Savigny, E., (2001) The practice turn in contemporary theory, , (eds), Routledge, London
dc.descriptionThévenot, L., The plurality of cognitive formats and engagements: moving between the familiar and the public (2007) Eur J Soc Theory, 10 (3), pp. 409-423
dc.descriptionWeber, M., Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology (1978) University of California Press, , Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, Berkeley
dc.descriptionBoltanski, L., Thévenot, L., (2006) On justification, , Princeton University Press, Cambridge
dc.descriptionLamont, M., Thévenot, L., Introduction: toward a renewed comparative cultural sociology (2000) Rethinking comparative cultural sociology: repertoires of evaluation in France and the United States, pp. 1-22. , Lamont M, Thévenot L, (eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
dc.descriptionSilber, I.F., Pragmatic sociology as cultural sociology: beyond repertoire theory? (2003) Eur J Soc Theory, 6 (4), pp. 427-449
dc.descriptionMarx, K., The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. Charles H. Kerr & Company (1907) Trans, , Daniel De Leon, Chicago
dc.descriptionHajer, M.A., Versteeg, W., A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: achievements, challenges, perspectives (2005) J Environ Policy Plan, 7 (3), pp. 175-184
dc.descriptionSpillman, L., (2002) Cultural sociology, , (ed), Blackwell, Oxford
dc.descriptionSwidler, A., Culture in action: symbols and strategies (1986) Am Sociol Rev, 51 (2), pp. 273-286
dc.descriptionJasanoff, S., Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science (2003) Minerva, 41 (3), pp. 223-244
dc.descriptionWynne, B., Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—hitting the notes, but missing the music? (2006) Community Genet, 9 (3), pp. 211-220
dc.descriptionMacnaghten P, Kearnes M, Davies S (2015 forthcoming) Anticipating public responses to emerging technologies: a narrative approach. J Environ Policy Pla
dc.languageen
dc.publisherKluwer Academic Publishers
dc.relationNanoEthics
dc.rightsfechado
dc.sourceScopus
dc.titleNarrative, Nanotechnology And The Accomplishment Of Public Responses: A Response To Thorstensen
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución