Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 667–672 | Cite as

Publics in the Making: Mediating Different Methods of Engagement and the Publics These Construct

Commentary on: “Technologies of Democracy: Experiments and Demonstrations”


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.


Public engagement Democracy Mediation Dialogue Elicitation 


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barry, A. (2000). Making the active scientific citizen. In Paper presented at 4S/EASST conference, ‘Technoscience, citizenship and culture’, University of Vienna, 2830 September. From Retrieved January 28, 2008.
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. BMRB (2008). Stem cell dialogue. From Retrieved January 22, 2009.
  5. Callon, M., Law, J., & Rip, A. (1986). Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world. Macmillan: London.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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 Retrieved January 28, 2008.
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 15, 226–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Irwin, A. (2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘New’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36(2), 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Laurent, B. (2011). Technologies of democracy: Experiments and demonstrations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, this issue.Google Scholar
  13. Lezaun, J., & Soneryd, L. (2007). Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 279–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences. Science Communication, 27(2), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Michael, M. (1998). Between citizen and consumer: Multiplying the meanings of the ‘public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mohr, A. (2003). A new policy-making instrument? The first Australian consensus conference. Faculty of arts. From Retrieved February 2, 2008.
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wynne, B. (1993). Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Science and Society, School of Sociology and Social PolicyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations