Publics in the Making: Mediating Different Methods of Engagement and the Publics These Construct
- Alison Mohr
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
The potential for public engagement to democratise science has come under increasing scrutiny amid concerns that conflicting motivations have led to confusion about what engagement means to those who mediate science and publics. This raises important yet relatively unexplored questions regarding how publics are constituted by different forms of engagement used by intermediary scholars and other actors. It is possible to identify at least two possible ‘rationalities of mediation’ that mobilise different versions of the public and the roles they are assumed to play, as ‘citizens’ or ‘users’, in discussions around technology. However, combinations of rationalities are found in practice and these have significant implications for the ‘new’ scientific democracy.
- Barben, D. (2010). Analyzing acceptance politics: Towards an epistemological shift in the public understanding of science and technology. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 274–292. CrossRef
- Barry, A. (2000). Making the active scientific citizen. In Paper presented at 4S/EASST conference, ‘Technoscience, citizenship and culture’, University of Vienna, 28–30 September. From http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/csisp/papers/barry_active_scientific_citizen.pdf. Retrieved January 28, 2008.
- Beder, S. (1999). Public participation or public relations. In B. T. Martin (Ed.), Technology and public participation (pp. 169–192). Wollongong, Australia: University of Wollongong: Science and Technology Studies.
- BMRB (2008). Stem cell dialogue. From http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/society/dialogue/activities/stem_cell_final_report.pdf. Retrieved January 22, 2009.
- Callon, M., Law, J., & Rip, A. (1986). Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world. Macmillan: London.
- Crombie, A., & Ducker, C. (2000). The first Australian consensus conference: Gene technology in the food chain (Evaluation—Phase 2 Report). Canberra: Grain Research and Development Corporation.
- Elam, M. & Bertilsson, M. (2002). Consuming, engaging and confronting science: The emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. In STAGE (Science, Technology and Governance in Europe) Discussion Paper One, March 2002. From http://www.stage-research.net/STAGE/downloads/StageDiscussPaper.pdf. Retrieved January 28, 2008.
- Elam, M., Reynolds, L., Soneryd, L., Sundqvist, G., & Szerszynski, B. (2007). Mediators of issues and mediators of process: A theoretical framework arenas for risk governance (Contract Number: FP6–036413). Brussels: European Commission, Community Research, ARGONA.
- Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 15, 226–243. CrossRef
- Irwin, A. (2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 1–18. CrossRef
- Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘New’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36(2), 299–320. CrossRef
- Laurent, B. (2011). Technologies of democracy: Experiments and demonstrations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, this issue.
- Lezaun, J., & Soneryd, L. (2007). Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 279–297. CrossRef
- Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences. Science Communication, 27(2), 1–24. CrossRef
- Michael, M. (1998). Between citizen and consumer: Multiplying the meanings of the ‘public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 313–327. CrossRef
- Mohr, A. (2002). Of being seen to do the right thing: Provisional findings from the first Australian consensus conference on gene technology in the food chain. Science and Public Policy, 29(1), 2–12. CrossRef
- Mohr, A. (2003). A new policy-making instrument? The first Australian consensus conference. Faculty of arts. From http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/public/adt-QGU20030707.075312/index.html. Retrieved February 2, 2008.
- Mohr, A., Raman, S., & Elliott, R. (2009). An independent evaluation of the BBSRC and MRC Stem Cell Dialogue Project 2008. Institute for Science and Society: University of Nottingham.
- Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage.
- Stirling, A. (2008). ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33, 262–294. CrossRef
- Wynne, B. (1993). Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 321–337. CrossRef
- Publics in the Making: Mediating Different Methods of Engagement and the Publics These Construct
Science and Engineering Ethics
Volume 17, Issue 4 , pp 667-672
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Public engagement
- Alison Mohr (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Institute for Science and Society, School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK