Locating Scientific Citizenship: The Institutional Contexts and Cultures of Public Engagement

In this article, we explore the institutional negotiation of public engagement in matters of science and technology. We take the example of the Science in Society dialogue program initiated by the UK’s Royal Society, but set this case within the wider experience of the public engagement activities of a range of charities, corporations, governmental departments, and scientific institutions. The novelty of the analysis lies in the linking of an account of the dialogue event and its outcomes to the values, practices, and imperatives—the institutional rationality—of the commissioning organization. We argue that the often tacit institutional construction of scientific citizenship is a critical, and relatively undeveloped, element of analysis—one that offers considerable insight into the practice and democratic implications of engaging publics in science and science policy. We also present evidence indicating that over time the expanding ‘‘capacities’’ associated with dialogue can act in subtle ways to enroll other elements of institutional architectures into more reflexive modes of thinking and acting. In the concluding section of the article, we consider the ways in which research and practice could (and we believe should) engage more squarely with facets of institutional context and culture.

[1]  James Wilsdon,et al.  See-Through Science : Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream , 2004 .

[2]  Alan Irwin,et al.  Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences , 2001 .

[3]  J. Walls,et al.  Separated at birth? Consensus and contention in the UK agriculture and human biotechnology commissions , 2006 .

[4]  B. Cooke,et al.  Participation: the New Tyranny? , 2001 .

[5]  J. Petts,et al.  Expert Conceptualisations of the Role of Lay Knowledge in Environmental Decisionmaking: challenges for Deliberative Democracy , 2006 .

[6]  Jack Stilgoe,et al.  The Public Value of Science: Or How to Ensure That Science Really Matters , 2005 .

[7]  Steven Miller,et al.  Public understanding of science at the crossroads , 2001 .

[8]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Risk As Globalising "Democratic" Discourse? Framing Subjects And Citizens , 2006 .

[9]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and competence in citizen participation : evaluating models for environmental discourse , 1995 .

[10]  L. Levidow.  European Public Participation as Risk Governance: Enhancing Democratic Accountability for Agbiotech Policy? , 2007 .

[11]  B. Wynne,et al.  Misunderstanding science? : the public reconstruction of science and technology , 1996 .

[12]  S. Jasanoff.  Designs on Nature , 2005 .

[13]  Steve Rayner,et al.  Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making , 2003 .

[14]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation , 1995 .

[15]  Diane Vaughan,et al.  The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA , 1996 .

[16]  Alan Irwin,et al.  Public Deliberation and Governance: Engaging with Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe , 2006 .

[17]  D. Smith.  Texts and the ontology of organizations and institutions , 2001 .

[18]  Judith Petts,et al.  Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes: Waste Management Case-studies , 2001 .

[19]  J. L. Heilbron,et al.  Leviathan and the air-pump. Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life , 1989, Medical History.

[20]  Richard Tutton,et al.  Shifting Subject Positions , 2007 .

[21]  Ian Scoones,et al.  Participatory Environmental Policy Processes: Experiences from North and South , 2000 .

[22]  B. Wynne.  Seasick on the Third Wave? Subverting the Hegemony of Propositionalism , 2003 .

[23]  Marie Campbell,et al.  Literacy, Experience, Power , 1995 .

[24]  G. Rowe,et al.  Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation , 2000 .

[25]  S. Jasanoff.  Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science , 2003 .

[26]  N. Pidgeon,et al.  Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering's inquiry , 2007 .

[27]  Li Daguan,et al.  Survey of Factors Affecting Science Communication by Scientists and Engineers , 2007 .

[28]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[29]  H. Rothstein.  Neglected risk regulation: The institutional attenuation phenomenon , 2002 .

[30]  Editorial: Of publics and science , 2007 .

[31]  Mark Elam,et al.  Consuming, Engaging and Confronting Science , 2003 .

[32]  E. C. Hughes,et al.  The sociological eye;: Selected papers , 1971 .

[33]  H. Rothstein.  Talking Shops or Talking Turkey? , 2007 .

[34]  C. Schmitt.  Scientific Revolution , 1968, Nature.

[35]  B. Wynne.  Elephants in the rooms where publics encounter “science”?: A response to Darrin Durant, “Accounting for expertise: Wynne and the autonomy of the lay public” , 2008 .

[36]  A. Irwin.  The Politics of Talk , 2006 .

[37]  D. Mosse,et al.  'People's knowledge', participation and patronage: operations and representations in rural development. , 2001 .

[38]  Judith Petts,et al.  Waste Management Strategy Development: A Case Study of Community Involvement and Consensus-Building in Hampshire , 1995 .

[39]  Sheila Jasanoff,et al.  Breaking the Waves in Science Studies , 2003 .

[40]  Gene Rowe,et al.  Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[41]  Harold Maurice Collins,et al.  The third wave of science studies , 2002 .