Abstract
Responsible innovation requires mutual responsiveness between various stakeholders around technological innovation. But in public engagement exercises, concerns about ethical, cultural and political impacts are too easily set aside, so that no one is actually encouraged to discuss responsibilities for these impacts. A typical example in the field of food innovation is the consumer’s recurring concern for natural food. In discussions, both consumers and engineers tend to consider the meaning of naturalness as subjective and private. In this chapter, we present an interdisciplinary design tool for public engagement that is more hospitable to such concerns, based on the Discursive Action Method and Techno-Ethical Imagination. We describe the advancements we made and the obstacles we faced when applying this tool in two dialogue workshops on novel foods and naturalness.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Dornblaser, L. 2013. The changing face of natural foods. Food Technology, March 2013.
Edwards, D. 1997. Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.
Edwards, D., and J. Potter. 1992. Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
Einsiedel, E. 2008. Public participation and dialogue. In Handbook of public communication of science and technology, ed. M. Bucchi, and B. Trench, 173–184. Abingdon: Routledge.
Felt, U., and M. Fochler. 2010. Machineries for making publics: inscribing and describing publics in public engagement. Minerva 48(3): 219–238.
Felt, U., M. Fochler, A. Müller, and M. Strassnig. 2009. Unruly ethics: on the difficulties of a bottom-up approach to ethics in the field of genomics. Public Understanding of Science 18(3): 354–371.
Foucault, M. 1970. The order of discourse. Inaugural lecture at the College de France. In Untying the text: A Post-Structuralist Reader, ed. R. Young (ed.) (1981), London: Routledge, 51–78.
Haen, D. 2014. The paradox of E-numbers: ethical, aesthetic, and cultural concerns in the Dutch discourse on food additives. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27: 27–42.
Heritage, J., and G. Raymond. 2005. The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. SocPsychol Q 68(1): 15–38.
Kampffmeyer Food Innovation. 2012. Report 02, How to make clean label. http://kfi.kampffmeyer.com/cleanlabelreport/en/index.html. Accessed 28 January 2013.
Kerr, A., S. Cunningham-Burley, and R. Tutton. 2007. Shifting subject positions. Expert and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science 37(3): 385–411.
Lamerichs, J. and te Molder, H. 2011. Reflecting on your own talk: the Discursive Action Method at work. In Applied conversation analysis. Intervention and Change in Institutional Talk, ed. C. Antaki, 184–206. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Macnaghten, P., M. Kearnes, and B. Wynne. 2005. Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Science Communication 27(2): 268–291.
Marris, C., Wynne, B., Simmons, P. and Weldon, S. 2002. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe. Final Report of the PABE research project funded by the Commission of European Communities.
Padmos, H., H. Mazeland, and H. te Molder. 2006. On doing being personal: citizen talk as an identity-suspending device in public debates on GMOs. In Analysing citizenship talk: Social positioning in political and legal decision-making procedures, ed. H. Hausendorf, and A. Bora, 276–295. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pellizzoni, L. 2004. Responsibility and environmental governance. Environmental Politics 13: 541–565.
Potter, J. 1996. Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage.
Rowe, G., and L. Frewer. 2005. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values 30(2): 251–290.
Rozin, P., M. Spranca, Z. Krieger, R. Neuhaus, D. Surillo, A. Swerdlin, and K. Wood. 2004. Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite 43: 147–154.
Siegrist, M. 2008. Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends in Food Science and Technology 19(11): 603–608.
Sneijder, P. and te Molder, H. 2014. ‘I don’t believe in light mayonnaise’: Epistemics-in-action in consumer/citizen talk on health claims. (Manuscript submitted for publication).
Stilgoe, J., R. Owen, and P. Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42(9): 1568–1580.
Swierstra, T. 2002. Moral vocabularies and public debate: the cases of cloning and new reproductive technologies. In Pragmatist ethics for a technological culture, ed. T. Swierstra, J. Keulartz, M. Korthals, and M. Schermer, 223–240. Deventer: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Swierstra, T., and te Molder, H. 2012. Risk and soft impacts. In Handbook of risk theory. Epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk, ed. S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, M. Peterson, and P. Sandin, 1050–1066. Dordrecht: Springer.
te Molder, H. 2012. Discourse communities as catalysts for science and technology communication. In Performing public participation in science and environment communication, ed. L. Phillips, A. Carvalho, and J. Doyle, 97–118. Bristol/Chicago: Intellect/The University of Chicago Press.
te Molder, H., and Gutteling, J. 2003. The issue of food genomics: about uncaring citizens and united experts. In Genes for your food—Food for your genes. Societal issues and dilemmas in food genomics, ed. R. van Est, L. Hanssen, and O. Crapel, 117–136. Working document 92. The Hague: Rathenau Institute.
Teil, G., and A. Hennion. 2004. Discovering quality or performing taste? A sociology of the amateur. In Qualities of food, ed. M. Harvey, A. McMeekin, and A. Warde. Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press.
van de Poel, I., J. Nihlén Fahlquist, N. Doorn, S. Zwart, and L. Royakkers. 2012. The problem of many hands: climate change as an example. Science and Engineering Ethics 18(1): 49–67.
van Gunsteren, H. 1998. A theory of citizenship. Organising plurality in contemporary democracies. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Veen, M., H. te Molder, B. Gremmen, and C. Van Woerkum. 2012. Competing agendas in upstream engagement meetings between celiac disease experts and patients. Science Communication 34(4): 460–486.
Von Schomberg, R. 2011. Prospects for Technology Assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In Technikfolgenabschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden, ed. M. Dusseldorp, and R. Beecroft. Wiesbaden: VsVerlag.
Wynne, B. 2001. Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture 10(4): 446–481.
Wynne, B. 2006. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics 9: 211–220.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Haen, D., Sneijder, P., te Molder, H., Swierstra, T. (2015). Natural Food: Organizing ‘Responsiveness’ in Responsible Innovation of Food Technology. In: Koops, BJ., Oosterlaken, I., Romijn, H., Swierstra, T., van den Hoven, J. (eds) Responsible Innovation 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17308-5_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17308-5_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17307-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17308-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)