Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSung, Kijinen
dc.date2012-06-21 16:54:31.171
dc.date.accessioned2012-06-22T13:57:15Z
dc.date.available2012-06-22T13:57:15Z
dc.date.issued2012-06-22
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1974/7286
dc.descriptionThesis (Ph.D, Philosophy) -- Queen's University, 2012-06-21 16:54:31.171en
dc.description.abstractScience and technology have become indispensable elements of virtually every public debate. While nations strive to employ the best experts to make timely decisions, discontented citizens increasingly demand better accountability and democratic legitimacy through broad and direct public consultation. Participatory decision-making, on the other hand, is often met by the worry that sound science might drown in a sea of ignorance. As science and technology studies (STS) attempts to navigate these conflicting concerns, it sometimes draws heavily, albeit often uncritically, upon contemporary political philosophy. In this dissertation, I explore links between H. M. Collins and Robert Evans’s account of the appropriate role of public participation in technical policy debates, and Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson’s liberal theory of deliberative democracy. Both views exemplify what I call the “gatekeeping paradigm”, a tendency to employ rigid constraints on admissible inputs as the primary means to direct democratic processes toward outcomes that are independently judged to be desirable. I argue that such an approach not only fails to account for the complexi-ties of public discourse in modern societies, but also reflects an impoverished conception of deliberative democracy as a black box. As an alternative to the gatekeeping paradigm, I develop and defend a social construc-tivist theory of democratic governance based on the ideas of Alan Irwin, Sheila Jasanoff, and Brian Wynne in STS; and John Dryzek in political philosophy. The constructivist view focuses less on externally imposed input-constraints and more on internal processes of self-regulation within shifting and heterogeneous discourses. Although this approach will need to be further developed and augmented with much empirical research before its efficacy can be determined, I suggest that constructivism offers a promising framework for the governance of science and technology as well as for thinking about deliberative democracy generally.en
dc.language.isoengen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesCanadian thesesen
dc.rightsThis publication is made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws without written authority from the copyright owner.en
dc.subjectdemocracyen
dc.subjectscience and technology studiesen
dc.subjectpolitical theoryen
dc.subjectphilosophyen
dc.titleThe Gatekeeping Paradigm and the Constructivist Alternativeen
dc.typethesisen
dc.description.degreePhDen
dc.contributor.supervisorSismondo, Sergioen
dc.contributor.supervisorKymlicka, Willen
dc.contributor.departmentPhilosophyen
dc.degree.grantorQueen's University at Kingstonen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record