Advertisement

Minerva

, Volume 48, Issue 3, pp 219–238 | Cite as

Machineries for Making Publics: Inscribing and De-scribing Publics in Public Engagement

  • Ulrike Felt
  • Maximilian Fochler
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Participation Public engagement Publics Techno-political cultures Austria 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. Barry, Andrew. 2001. Political machines. Governing a Technological Society. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  3. 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.
  4. Braun, Kathrin, and Susanne Schultz. 2010. “… A certain amount of engineering involved”: constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements. Public Understanding of Science 19(4): 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dryzek, John, and Aviezer Tucker. 2008. Deliberative innovation to different effect: consensus conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States. Public Administration Review 68(5): 864–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.
  7. Felt, Ulrike, and Maximilian Fochler. 2008. The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation in science and technology. Science and Public Policy 35(7): 489–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Felt, Ulrike, Maximilian Fochler, Annina Müller, and Michael 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Goodin, Robert, and John Dryzek. 2006. Deliberative impact: The macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics and Society 34(2): 219–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goven, Joanna. 2006. Dialogue, governance, and biotechnology: acknowledging the context of the conversation. The Integrated Assessment Journal 6(2): 99–116.Google Scholar
  15. Hacking, Ian. 1986. Making up people. In Reconstructing individualism, ed. T.C. Helier, et al., 222–236. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Horst, Maja, and Alan Irwin. 2010. Nations at ease with radical knowledge: on consensus, consensusing and false consensusness. Social Studies of Science 40(1): 106–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Irwin, Alan. 2001. Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Irwin, Alan. 2006. The politics of talk: coming to terms with the ‘new scientific governance’. Social Studies of Science 36(2): 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004. States of knowledge: the co-production of science and the social order. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lezaun, Javier, and Linda Soneryd. 2007. Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science 16(3): 279–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marres, Nortje. 2005. No issue, No public: Democratic deficits after the displacement of politics. Doctoral Dissertation: Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  24. Michael, Mike. 2009. Publics performing publics: of PiGs, PiPs and politics. Public Understanding of Science 18(5): 617–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rose, Nicolas. 1999. Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wynne, Brian. 2007. Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology, and Society: An International Journal 1(1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social Studies of ScienceUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations