<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Oudheusden, Michiel</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Participation beyond consensus? Technology assessments, consensus conferences and democratic modulation. </style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Social Epistemology</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2017</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">31 (6)</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this article, we inquire into two contemporary participatory formats&lt;br /&gt;that seek to democratically intervene in scientific practice: the consensus&lt;br /&gt;conference and participatory technology assessment (pTA). We explain how&lt;br /&gt;these formats delegitimize conflict and disagreement by making a strong&lt;br /&gt;appeal to consensus. Based on our direct involvement in these formats and&lt;br /&gt;informed both by political philosophy and science and technology studies,&lt;br /&gt;we outline conceptions that contrast with the consensus ideal, including&lt;br /&gt;dissensus, disclosure, conflictual consensus and agonistic democracy.&lt;br /&gt;Drawing on the notion of meta-consensus and a distinction between&lt;br /&gt;four models of democracy (aggregative, deliberative, participatory and&lt;br /&gt;agonistic), we elaborate how a more positive valuation of conflict provides&lt;br /&gt;opportunities for mutual learning, the articulation of disagreement, and&lt;br /&gt;democratic modulation—three aspirations that are at the heart of most&lt;br /&gt;pTAs and consensus conferences. Disclosing the strengths and weaknesses&lt;br /&gt;of these different models is politically and epistemically useful, and should&lt;br /&gt;therefore be an integral part of the development of participation theory and&lt;br /&gt;process in science and technology.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">497</style></section></record></records></xml>