Katalog GES



Promoting Legitimacy in Technical Standardization

In this article we examine the legitimacy of committee standardization as an alternative to pure market processes of technical standardization of information and communication technology (ICT). We argue that not only mandatory (regulative) but also voluntary (coordinative) standards require some... Full description

1st Person: Werle, Raymund
Additional Persons: Iversen, Eric J.
Source: in: Science, Technology & Innovation Studies (2006), Vol. 2 (1), p. 19-39
Type of Publication: Article
Published: 2006
Online: Abstract
Full text open access
Full text open access
  Search for full text
LEADER 03080naa a2200289uub4500
001 item_1233573
003 ZDB-97-MPR
005 20190418015640.978
008 20190418s2006 xx |||||o |00| ||eng |
024 7 |a 291750  |2 edoc 
100 1 |a Werle, Raymund  |u Wissenschaft, Technik und Innovationssysteme, MPI for the Study of Societies, Max Planck Society  |0 (eterms:CONE)/persons/resource/persons41329  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Promoting Legitimacy in Technical Standardization  |h [Online] 
260 |c 2006 
300 |a 21 p. 
506 0 |f Unrestricted online access  |2 star 
520 3 |a In this article we examine the legitimacy of committee standardization as an alternative to pure market processes of technical standardization of information and communication technology (ICT). We argue that not only mandatory (regulative) but also voluntary (coordinative) standards require some kind of democratic legitimacy. While the question of how to achieve this legitimacy has become central to today's changing world of standards, this situation is not adequately reflected in how the mounting legitimacy-deficit is treated. We note here that there remains a tendency to think of the legitimacy-deficit primarily in terms of "input legitimacy" criteria. At the same time we observe a tendency for standardization organizations (SDO) to orient efforts towards achieving "output legitimacy" by developing standards that are regarded by diverse groups of (legitimizing) stakeholders as constituting "good standards". This article therefore applies the distinction between input and output legitimacy to the rapidly evolving standardization landscape, arguing that it is necessary to expand the analysis of the legitimacy-deficit in the formal bodies responsible for ICT standards. We address what democratic legitimacy means in terms of standards and standardization, discuss why it is particularly important here, and explore how it has been addressed. Current examples indicate that in order to arrive at "good" standards SDO extend and redefine the cognitive and normative frame of standardization. This frame change helps to include nontechnical and non-commercial interests and values without directly involving the growing variety of stakeholders and civil society advocates in the process. 
533 |n [Online] 
700 1 |a Iversen, Eric J.  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i in:  |t Science, Technology & Innovation Studies  |d 2006  |g Vol. 2 (1), p. 19-39  |q 2:1<19-39  |x 1861-3675  |7 nnas 
856 4 |u http://www.sti-studies.de/ojs/index.php/sti/article/view/80  |z Abstract  |2 public  |3 abstract 
856 4 |u http://www.sti-studies.de/ojs/index.php/sti/article/view/80/61  |z Full text open access  |2 public  |3 publisher-version 
856 4 |q application/pdf  |s 251051 bytes  |u https://pure.mpg.de/pubman/item/item_1233573_5/component/file_1836558/STI_2_2006_Werle.pdf  |z Full text open access  |2 public  |3 fulltext 
887 |a ctx_1212570  |2 mpg.pure.context.id 
952 |d 2  |e 1  |g 21  |h 19-39  |j 2006 
995 |a multiple_import  |a eDoc Migration Full 2011-11-25 13:29  |a journal article 
996 |a Zeitschriftenartikel 
997 |a article 

Similar Items

Cannot find similar records

Library Services

Search Options

Quick links

Orientation