DM
D.C. Mehos
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
3 records found
1
In this volume, we explore the perspective that the development of a technology and its introduction to society should be seen as an experimental process because of the myriad of uncertainties which will only be reduced gradually after the technology is actually employed. Furthermore, unexpected technological developments, such as the Fukushima disaster, may trigger an experimental process in which society must contend with new uncertainties posed by a technology and its social embedding and effects. The aim of this edited volume is to understand better the role of experimentation in the introduction of new technologies into society. This concerns what has been called real-world or societal experimentation with new technologies (Martin and Schinzinger 1983; Krohn and Weyer 1994; Felt et al. 2007; Van de Poel 2009), and where appropriate in the volume, we also address more traditional forms of experimentation, such as laboratory and eld experiments as well as thought experiments and living labs.
...
In this volume, we explore the perspective that the development of a technology and its introduction to society should be seen as an experimental process because of the myriad of uncertainties which will only be reduced gradually after the technology is actually employed. Furthermore, unexpected technological developments, such as the Fukushima disaster, may trigger an experimental process in which society must contend with new uncertainties posed by a technology and its social embedding and effects. The aim of this edited volume is to understand better the role of experimentation in the introduction of new technologies into society. This concerns what has been called real-world or societal experimentation with new technologies (Martin and Schinzinger 1983; Krohn and Weyer 1994; Felt et al. 2007; Van de Poel 2009), and where appropriate in the volume, we also address more traditional forms of experimentation, such as laboratory and eld experiments as well as thought experiments and living labs.
Journal article
(2016)
-
A Ligtvoet, EHWJ Cuppen, O Di Ruggero, K Hemmes, U Pesch, JN Quist, DC Mehos
This paper reports on the refinement of constructive conflict methodology (CCM) combining Q methodology and stakeholder dialogue workshops for gas futures for the Netherlands. Since the end of the 1950s, natural gas exploration and exploitation has been a major focus of the Dutch energy policy. Discussions about the future of energy in the Netherlands tend to focus either on pro-gas or pro-renewable energy. Using Q methodology we have constructed more nuanced perspectives on the future of energy in the Netherlands. We used these perspectives in a stakeholder dialogue, in
which the participants further detailed the perspectives and discussed future policy options. Analysis of the outcomes of this process teaches us that the Netherlands remain gas-focused, that renewable energy sources are as much a dogma as nuclear power was in the 1960s, and that the prospect of an austere future is a non-debatable issue. From a methodological perspective it can be concluded that the refined methodology contributed to diversity in views, opened up the dominant discourse and led to learning among participating stakeholders. ...
which the participants further detailed the perspectives and discussed future policy options. Analysis of the outcomes of this process teaches us that the Netherlands remain gas-focused, that renewable energy sources are as much a dogma as nuclear power was in the 1960s, and that the prospect of an austere future is a non-debatable issue. From a methodological perspective it can be concluded that the refined methodology contributed to diversity in views, opened up the dominant discourse and led to learning among participating stakeholders. ...
This paper reports on the refinement of constructive conflict methodology (CCM) combining Q methodology and stakeholder dialogue workshops for gas futures for the Netherlands. Since the end of the 1950s, natural gas exploration and exploitation has been a major focus of the Dutch energy policy. Discussions about the future of energy in the Netherlands tend to focus either on pro-gas or pro-renewable energy. Using Q methodology we have constructed more nuanced perspectives on the future of energy in the Netherlands. We used these perspectives in a stakeholder dialogue, in
which the participants further detailed the perspectives and discussed future policy options. Analysis of the outcomes of this process teaches us that the Netherlands remain gas-focused, that renewable energy sources are as much a dogma as nuclear power was in the 1960s, and that the prospect of an austere future is a non-debatable issue. From a methodological perspective it can be concluded that the refined methodology contributed to diversity in views, opened up the dominant discourse and led to learning among participating stakeholders.
which the participants further detailed the perspectives and discussed future policy options. Analysis of the outcomes of this process teaches us that the Netherlands remain gas-focused, that renewable energy sources are as much a dogma as nuclear power was in the 1960s, and that the prospect of an austere future is a non-debatable issue. From a methodological perspective it can be concluded that the refined methodology contributed to diversity in views, opened up the dominant discourse and led to learning among participating stakeholders.