fundamental to understanding what agendas have been “mis-assigned” in past
policies; what has been assigned perhaps against a more desirable order of
agendas/actors at some point in time.
1.3 Research in Development: Incorporating Values
into Decisions of Technology Use
This study is in process (most of the understanding arrived at this point has been
formed as the author’s graduate thesis [3], and is expressed in the first sub-section
of the introduction), and a working hypothesis has been derived: One problem of
prior institutional schemes is that citizens have been deprived of debate concerning
overall value judgments of technology use (upstream engagement), and instead
have been expected to participate in judging technical, specific issues (downstream
issues). Since it can be assumed that the characteristic of citizen actors lies is in their
citizenship and not their engineering expertise (or the lack of it), it follows that
devising a means to ask citizens to discuss values concerning such issues would be
a better combination of agendas/actors. This is a point shared with researchers
working for the Science Council of Japan’s on issues of high level radioactive waste
disposal policy [6].
It is worthy of noting here that the categories of actors employed here does not
split society into engineers and citizens, but rather assumes an abstract notion of
citizens being those thinking as a politically independent member of society (including vocational engineers, researchers etc.), with the other end of the scale
being so-called specialists, engineers, or non-“value-thinkers”; those who have the
know-how of solutions to predefined problems based on their expertise. It is not
necessarily that “the non-engineers’ view was not considered” but rather that “those
of the public who spoke as citizens were dismissed” or “agendas which concerned
value judgments were put aside” in the debate concerning high level radioactive
waste disposal policy of Japan.
This working hypothesis has been put to test. Using chances granted by funds
from Tokai village, a municipality with a long relationship with the nuclear
industry, a method for consulting people in matters of value regarding disposal
related technology has been devised and conducted. The details are introduced in
the subsequent sections.
2 Methods of Incorporating Values into Discussion
of Technology Use
2.1 Objectives and Methods
The objective of the fieldwork at Tokai village is to attempt to consult people on
issues of values which influence decisions on technology use (as concerns this
Incorporating Value Discussions into High Level …
327
policies; what has been assigned perhaps against a more desirable order of
agendas/actors at some point in time.
1.3 Research in Development: Incorporating Values
into Decisions of Technology Use
This study is in process (most of the understanding arrived at this point has been
formed as the author’s graduate thesis [3], and is expressed in the first sub-section
of the introduction), and a working hypothesis has been derived: One problem of
prior institutional schemes is that citizens have been deprived of debate concerning
overall value judgments of technology use (upstream engagement), and instead
have been expected to participate in judging technical, specific issues (downstream
issues). Since it can be assumed that the characteristic of citizen actors lies is in their
citizenship and not their engineering expertise (or the lack of it), it follows that
devising a means to ask citizens to discuss values concerning such issues would be
a better combination of agendas/actors. This is a point shared with researchers
working for the Science Council of Japan’s on issues of high level radioactive waste
disposal policy [6].
It is worthy of noting here that the categories of actors employed here does not
split society into engineers and citizens, but rather assumes an abstract notion of
citizens being those thinking as a politically independent member of society (including vocational engineers, researchers etc.), with the other end of the scale
being so-called specialists, engineers, or non-“value-thinkers”; those who have the
know-how of solutions to predefined problems based on their expertise. It is not
necessarily that “the non-engineers’ view was not considered” but rather that “those
of the public who spoke as citizens were dismissed” or “agendas which concerned
value judgments were put aside” in the debate concerning high level radioactive
waste disposal policy of Japan.
This working hypothesis has been put to test. Using chances granted by funds
from Tokai village, a municipality with a long relationship with the nuclear
industry, a method for consulting people in matters of value regarding disposal
related technology has been devised and conducted. The details are introduced in
the subsequent sections.
2 Methods of Incorporating Values into Discussion
of Technology Use
2.1 Objectives and Methods
The objective of the fieldwork at Tokai village is to attempt to consult people on
issues of values which influence decisions on technology use (as concerns this
Incorporating Value Discussions into High Level …
327