Machineries for Making Publics: Inscribing and De-scribing Publics in Public Engagement
- 805 Downloads
This paper investigates the dynamic and performative construction of publics in public engagement exercises. In this investigation, we, on the one hand, analyse how public engagement settings as political machineries frame particular kinds of roles and identities for the participating publics in relation to ‘the public at large’. On the other hand, we study how the participating citizens appropriate, resist and transform these roles and identities, and how they construct themselves and the participating group in relation to wider publics. The empirical basis of our argument is a discussion of four different kinds of participation events in Austria. Building on these observations we develop conclusions about the public up-take of public participation in technoscience and the role of public engagement in current techno-political cultures.
KeywordsParticipation Public engagement Publics Techno-political cultures Austria
This paper builds on research conducted in the framework of the projects: “Evaluation of the discourse day on genetic diagnosis 2002”, funded by the Austrian genome research programme GEN-AU; “Challenges of Biomedicine. Socio-Cultural Contexts, European Governance, and Bioethics”, funded by the European Commission in the 6th framework programme, Contract No. SAS6-CT-2003-510238; and “Let’s talk about GOLD. Analysing the interactions between genome research(ers) and the public as a learning process”, funded by the Austrian genome research programme GEN-AU as an ELSA project. Project leader or coordinator for all three projects was Ulrike Felt. The authors acknowledge the contribution of all colleagues involved in these projects, both as collaborators and advisors. A prior version of this paper was presented in an organised session at the annual conference of the Society for the Social Studies of Science in Washington 2009. We would like to thank the session organisers Regula Burri and Brice Laurent, as well as the other participants and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism and suggestions. Martha Kenney’s help in doing the final language editing is also highly appreciated.
- Akrich, Madeleine. 1992. The description of technical objects. In Shaping Technology / Building Society. Studies in sociotechnical change, ed. John Law, 205–224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Barry, Andrew. 2001. Political machines. Governing a Technological Society. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
- Bogner, Alexander. 2004. Partizipative Politikberatung am Beispiel der BürgerInnenkonferenz 2003 [Participatory Policy Advice: The Example of the Citizen Conference 2003]. Report available from http://epub.oeaw.ac.at/?arp=0x0010b250. Accessed 15 Oct 2009.
- Felt, Ulrike. 2003. “One science—many Europes?” On the difficulties of transferring experiences in science-society interactions. In O.P.U.S.—Optimizing public understanding of science and technology, ed. Ulrike Felt. Report available from http://sciencestudies.univie.ac.at/publications/?L=2. Accessed 23 Jan 2010.
- Felt, Ulrike, Brian Wynne, et al. 2007. Taking European knowledge society seriously. Report of the expert group on science and governance to the science, economy and society directorate, directorate-general for research, European Commission. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
- Felt, Ulrike, Maximilian Fochler, Astrid Mager, and Peter Winkler. 2008. Visions and versions of governing biomedicine: narratives on power structures, decision-making and public participation in the field of biomedical technology in the Austrian context. Social Studies of Science 38(2): 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Felt, Ulrike, Maximilian Fochler, and Peter Winkler. 2010. Coming to terms with biomedical technologies in different techno-political cultures. A comparative analysis of focus groups on organ transplantation and genetic testing in Austria, France, and the Netherlands. Science, Technology & Human Values 35(4): 525–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Felt, Ulrike, and Maximilian Fochler. forthcoming. Slim futures and the fat pill: Civic imaginations of innovation and governance in an engagement setting. Science as Culture In print.Google Scholar
- Goven, Joanna. 2006. Dialogue, governance, and biotechnology: acknowledging the context of the conversation. The Integrated Assessment Journal 6(2): 99–116.Google Scholar
- Hacking, Ian. 1986. Making up people. In Reconstructing individualism, ed. T.C. Helier, et al., 222–236. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Hecht, Gabrielle. 2001. Technology, politics, and national identity in france. In Technologies of power: Essays in honor of Thomas Parker Hughes and Agatha Chipley Hughes, eds. Michael Allen, and Gabrielle Hecht, 253–293. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Marres, Nortje. 2005. No issue, No public: Democratic deficits after the displacement of politics. Doctoral Dissertation: Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar