Reviews for Innovation, Science, Environment: Canadian Policies and Performance, 2006-2007

The average rating for Innovation, Science, Environment: Canadian Policies and Performance, 2006-2007 based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2009-06-16 00:00:00 Lynn Ringeisen Even though it has been many years since this book was published....it was fantastic and a great intro to innovation systems

Review # 2 was written on 2017-05-11 00:00:00 Jerry Wright This book mounts a defense of 'dialogic democracy' [as opposed to delegative democracy] in which 'hybrid forums' of experts, and sundry configurations of laypeople coalesce to debate socio-technical controversies, leading to the reconfiguration of social institutions. I thought the first three chapters were the best; these focused on elucidating the relationship between the functioning of science [in its 'secluded' or 'in the wild' varieties] and civil society. The authors propose that hybrid forums be encouraged, and that these enrich democratic institutions by bringing multiple conflicting viewpoints into contact. I especially like the discussion of the 'laboratorization' of society, whereby expertise attempts to reconfigure society to mirror controlled conditions. I also liked the discussion of the relation between representation and expertise. Despite all the emphasis on fluidity and emergence, the second half of the book unselfconsciously proposes what seems like a flowchart for implementing said forums. The two major blindspots in the book seem to be any discussion of the relationship between these forums and the state, and the character of public discourse. The authors seem to accept a fairly conventional view of the state, assuming that the outcomes of hybrid forums can easily be worked back into the formal political process. An obvious way to extend and problematize their framework would be to consider situations in which hybrid forums constitute governing or steering bodies, as well. Bizarrely, Habermas receives only a brief dismissal, and there is no discussion of the many English-language replies to his work by Calhoun, Warner, Fraser, etc. This seems like a huge oversight, given that what would seem to define a hybrid forum is its heterodox nature relative to the conventions of public discourse.