Opening Up the Participation Laboratory

How to embed reflexivity in public participation in techno-science and to open it up to the agency of publics are key concerns in current debates. There is a risk that engagements become limited to “laboratory experiments,” highly controlled and foreclosed by participation experts, particularly in upstream techno-sciences. In this paper, we propose a way to open up the “participation laboratory” by engaging localized, self-assembling publics in ways that respect and mobilize their ecologies of participation. Our innovative reflexive methodology introduced participatory methods to public engagement with upstream techno-science, with the public contributing to both the content and format of the project. Reflecting on the project, we draw attention to the largely overlooked issue of temporalities of participation, and the co-production of futures and publics in participation methodologies. We argue that many public participation methodologies are underpinned by the open futures model, which imagines the future as a space of unrestrained creativity. We contrast that model with the lived futures model typical of localized publics, which respects latency of materials and processes but imposes limits on creativity. We argue that to continue being societally relevant and scientifically important, public participation methods should reconcile the open future of research with the lived futures of localized publics.

[1]  Mike Michael,et al.  Publics performing publics: of PiGs, PiPs and politics , 2009 .

[2]  Pat J. Gehrke,et al.  Ecological validity and the study of publics: The case for organic public engagement methods , 2014, Public understanding of science.

[3]  N. Brown,et al.  Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science , 2000 .

[4]  Jill Chopyak,et al.  Public participation in science and technology decision making: trends for the future , 2002 .

[5]  N. Vaughan,et al.  Deliberative Mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists ‘open up’ appraisal of geoengineering , 2014, Public understanding of science.

[6]  P. Macnaghten,et al.  Converging citizens? Nanotechnology and the political imaginary of public engagement in Brazil and the United Kingdom , 2011 .

[7]  J. Xue,et al.  Recent progress in organic photovoltaics: device architecture and optical design , 2014 .

[8]  Stuart N. Lane,et al.  Coproducing Flood Risk Knowledge: Redistributing Expertise in Critical ‘Participatory Modelling’ , 2011 .

[9]  Judith Tsouvalis,et al.  Building 'participation' upon critique: The Loweswater Care Project, Cumbria, UK , 2012, Environ. Model. Softw..

[10]  S. Whatmore,et al.  Political matter : technoscience, democracy, and public life , 2010 .

[11]  Alexander Bogner,et al.  The Paradox of Participation Experiments , 2012 .

[12]  U. Felt The temporal choreographies of participation: Thinking innovation and society from a time-sensitive perspective , 2014 .

[13]  J. Chilvers Reflexive Engagement? Actors, Learning, and Reflexivity in Public Dialogue on Science and Technology , 2013 .

[14]  N. Gregson,et al.  Co-producing energy futures: impacts of participatory modelling , 2016 .

[15]  M. Callon,et al.  Research “in the wild” and the shaping of new social identities , 2003 .

[16]  Ulrike Felt,et al.  Machineries for Making Publics: Inscribing and De-scribing Publics in Public Engagement , 2010 .

[17]  Jathan Sadowski,et al.  Against blank slate futuring: Noticing obduracy in the city through experiential methods of public engagement , 2016 .

[18]  M. Michael “What Are We Busy Doing?” , 2012 .

[19]  Sybille van den Hove,et al.  Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches , 2006 .

[20]  A. Stirling “Opening Up” and “Closing Down” , 2008 .

[21]  Daniel J. Fiorino Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms , 1990 .

[22]  Future visioning for sustainable household practices: spaces for sustainability learning? , 2012 .

[23]  Noortje Marres,et al.  The Issues Deserve More Credit , 2007 .

[24]  Alfons Bora,et al.  Participatory science governance revisited: normative expectations versus empirical evidence , 2006 .

[25]  Richard Farr,et al.  The ghosts in the machine? , 1994, Nature.

[26]  B. Latour Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern , 2004, Critical Inquiry.

[27]  M. Kearnes,et al.  Remaking participation : science, environment and emergent publics , 2016 .

[28]  J. Dewey,et al.  The Public and its Problems , 1927 .

[29]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Public Participation in Science and Technology: Performing and Obscuring a Political–Conceptual Category Mistake , 2007 .

[30]  Barbara Adam,et al.  Future Matters: Action, Knowledge, Ethics , 2007 .

[31]  Matthew Kearnes,et al.  Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences? , 2005 .

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