View article

Over the past 40 years, technology assessment (TA) has developed into an institutionalised practice for decision-makers faced with the complexity of implementing new technologies in society (Grunwald, 2010). In a European context, the Office for Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA) represents a network of institutions, such as the Danish Board of Technology Foundation (DBT), that have been pioneering a particular brand of participatory TA, where emphasis is on citizen consultations with a representative sample of the population, following established principles of rational dialogue (Jensen, 2005; Horst & Irwin, 2010). Within the fields of digital methods and Science & Technology Studies (STS), from which we draw our techno-anthropological inspiration, another set of practices have emerged under headings such as issue mapping and controversy mapping. These efforts involve the use of digital methods to understand and represent public concerns (Marres, 2015). These methods are characterised by being both post-demographic (Rogers, 2013), ie not representative, and by following the actors of a debate in the wild, ie not in a controlled environment. As such, there is a potential conflict between the practices found in institutions such as the DBT and the practices we refer to as digital methods.