Participatory Paradoxes

Mechanisms to engage lay citizens in science and technology are currently in vogue worldwide. While some engagement exercises aim to influence policy making, research suggests that they have had little discernable impacts in this regard. We explore the potentials and challenges of facilitating citizen engagement in nanotechnology from the “topdown,” addressing the following questions: Can academics and others within institutions initiate meaningful engagement with unorganized lay citizens from the top-down? Can they facilitate effective engagement among citizens, scientists, and policy makers while building citizen engagement capacities? Is it possible to create independent bottom-up citizen engagement in scientific and technological issues from the top-down, and what are the challenges in doing so? Our experiences show that although academics can build citizens' individual, collective, and political capacities to engage with each other, scientists, and policy makers, this work is enormously time and energy intensive, and institutional support is needed to sustain it.

[1]  Alexandra Plows,et al.  Listening Without Prejudice? , 2007 .

[2]  T. Gilmore,et al.  Action-based modes of inquiry and the host-researcher relationship , 1986 .

[3]  Richard Winter,et al.  Learning from experience : principles and practice in action-research , 1989 .

[4]  Alison Anderson,et al.  Nanotechnologies, risk and society , 2007 .

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

[6]  N. Pidgeon,et al.  Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? , 2007 .

[7]  F. Fischer.  Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge , 2000 .

[8]  Daniel Lee Kleinman,et al.  Science, technology, and democracy , 2002 .

[9]  Roy Marsh,et al.  Evaluation of a Deliberative Conference , 2004 .

[10]  Joanna Goven,et al.  Deploying the Consensus Conference in New Zealand: Democracy and De-Problematization , 2003 .

[11]  Javier Lezaun,et al.  Consulting citizens: technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics , 2007 .

[12]  Darin Barney.  The Morning After: Citizen Engagement in Technological Society , 2006 .

[13]  E. Einsiedel,et al.  Consensus Conferences as Deliberative Democracy , 2000 .

[14]  Maria Powell,et al.  Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: the democratic virtues of the consensus Conference model , 2008 .

[15]  Edna Einsiedel,et al.  Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia: , 2001 .

[16]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  Developments in nanotechnology public engagement in the UK: 'upstream' towards sustainability? , 2008 .

[17]  Maria Powell,et al.  Meaningful Citizen Engagement in Science and Technology , 2008 .

[18]  David H. Guston,et al.  Evaluating the First U.S. Consensus Conference: The Impact of the Citizens’ Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy , 1999 .

[19]  Graeme Hodge,et al.  Nanotechnology and Public Interest Dialogue: Some International Observations , 2007 .

[20]  P. Lascoumes,et al.  Agir dans un monde incertain : essai sur la démocratie technique , 2001 .

[21]  B. Martin,et al.  Random selection of citizens for technological decision making , 2002 .