Taking Our Own Medicine: On an Experiment in Science Communication
- 328 Downloads
In 2007 a social scientist and a designer created a spatial installation to communicate social science research about the regulation of emerging science and technology. The rationale behind the experiment was to improve scientific knowledge production by making the researcher sensitive to new forms of reactions and objections. Based on an account of the conceptual background to the installation and the way it was designed, the paper discusses the nature of the engagement enacted through the experiment. It is argued that experimentation is a crucial way of making social science about science communication and engagement more robust.
KeywordsScience communication Spatial installation Public engagement Experimentation
- Dalsgaard, B. (2007). Spatial communication. http://www.stamcellenetvaerket.dk/eng-spatial%20comm!.html. Accessed August 13, 2011.
- Douglas, M. (1996). Thought styles. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
- Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1983). Risk and culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Gieryn, T. F. (1995). Boundaries of science. In S. Jasanoff, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 393–443). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
- Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public. Communication culture and credibility. New York: Plenum Trade.Google Scholar
- Hackett, E. J., Rhoten, W. B., & Diana, R. (2011). Engaged, embedded, enjoined: Science and technology studies in the national science foundation. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(this issue).Google Scholar
- Hagendijk, R., Healey, P., Horst, M., & Irwin, A. (2005). STAGE: Science, technology and governance in Europe: Challenges of public engagement [European Commission: (HPSE-CT2001-50003)].Google Scholar
- Horst, M. (2003). Controversy and collectivity—articulations of social and natural order in mass mediated representations of biotechnology. Copenhagen Business School, Doctoral School on knowledge and management. http://openarchive.cbs.dk/handle/10398/7130. Accessed August 13, 2011.
- Horst, M., & Dalsgaard, B. (2007). The stem cell network. www.stamcellenetvaerket.dk. Accessed August 13, 2011.
- Horst, M., & Michael, M. (2011). On the shoulder of idiots: Rethinking science communication as ‘Event’. Science as Culture. 1470–1189, First published on 08 April 2011.Google Scholar
- Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science a study of people expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Jespersen, K. J. V. (2004). A history of Denmark. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Law, J. (1986). Power action and belief. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Law, J., & Hassard, J. (1999). Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
- Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science—knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Schuurbiers, D. (2011). What happens in the lab does not stay in the lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(this issue).Google Scholar
- Selin, C. (2011). Negotiating plausibility: Intervening in the future of nanotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (this issue).Google Scholar
- Stengers, I. (1997). Power and invention: Situating science. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
- Van Oudheusden, M. (2011). Questioning ‘participation’: A critical appraisal of its conceptualization in a flemish participatory technology assessment. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(this issue).Google Scholar