Public Participation in Science and Technology: Performing and Obscuring a Political–Conceptual Category Mistake

In this paper, I attempt to explain how existing work in the science and technology studies (STS) sub-field of public engagement with, or participation in, public issues involving science and technology, has performed a serious category mistake in allowing itself to be called ‘public participation in science’ research. This requires us to reflect more systematically upon how our assumed objects, here the public issues we think we are dealing with, come to be ‘objectified’ in the forms which they do. Using the three sister papers, I make some conceptual distinctions which carry important political implications and corresponding analytical implications for STS. I suggest that the typical reduction of participation questions to ones of ‘what qualification do publics have for engagement in expert practices?’ is a mistaken distraction from more important questions which not only much analytical work, but also dominant practice, continues to ignore. This reductionist tendency even in social science and STS may tend to intensify, the more the issues reach across global networks and arenas. Finally, I suggest that STS work on public participation needs to enrich itself with some relevant political theory and philosophy, which would throw due historical perspective on the deeper forces shaping scientific understandings and normative representational performances of its ‘democratic’ publics.

[1]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Rationality and ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and nuclear decisions in Britain , 1982 .

[2]  Ian Scoones,et al.  Science and citizens : globalization and the challenge of engagement , 2006 .

[3]  Valerie L. Kuletz The Tainted Desert: Environmental and Social Ruin in the American West , 1998 .

[4]  H. M. Collins,et al.  King Canute Meets the Beach Boys , 2003 .

[5]  Joanna Goven Dialogue, governance, and biotechnology: acknowledging the context of the conversation , 2006 .

[6]  Richard Shusterman,et al.  Bourdieu : a critical reader , 1999 .

[7]  F. Evans Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition , 1995 .

[8]  Arie Rip,et al.  TAKING EUROPEAN KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY SERIOUSLY Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research, European Commission , 2007 .

[9]  B. Wynne,et al.  Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics on GMOs , 2001, Science as culture.

[10]  Seyla Benhabib,et al.  Democracy and difference : contesting the boundaries of the political , 1996 .

[11]  Claire Marris,et al.  Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe: Report of the PABE project funded by the European Commission, DG Research (contract number: FAIR CT98-3844 (DG12 - SSMI) , 2001 .

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

[13]  S. Toulmin Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity , 1990 .

[14]  Eduardo Viveiros de Castro,et al.  Exchanging Perspectives: The Transformation of Objects into Subjects in Amerindian Ontologies , 2004 .

[15]  Michel Pimbert,et al.  Prajateerpu: a Citizens Jury / Scenario Workshop on Food and Farming Futures for Andhra Pradesh , 2002 .

[16]  R. Evans,et al.  Human rights and genomics: science, genomics and social movements at the 2004 London Social Forum , 2007 .

[17]  Iris Marion Young,et al.  Communication and the other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy , 1995 .

[18]  I. Barns Manufacturing consensus?: Reflections on the UK national consensus conference on plant biotechnology , 1995 .

[19]  E. Laclau On Populist Reason , 2005 .

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

[21]  H. Arendt,et al.  The Promise of Politics , 2005 .

[22]  Paul Voice,et al.  Nancy Fraser and Axel Honneth ,Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange(London and New York: Verso, 2003). , 2005 .

[23]  James C. Scott Weapons of the Weak , 2019, Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics.

[24]  Hilary Rose,et al.  Science and Society , 1969 .

[25]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science – Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music? , 2006, Public Health Genomics.

[26]  Graham Murdock,et al.  The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement , 2007 .

[27]  Simon Joss,et al.  Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: An impact study of consensus conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish public debate , 1998 .

[28]  A. Agrawal Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects , 2005 .

[29]  James C. Scott,et al.  Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. , 1985, The Journal of Asian Studies.

[30]  B Wynne Expert discourses of risk and ethics on genetically manipulated organisms: the weaving of public alienation. , 2001, Notizie di Politeia.

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

[32]  Andrew Stirling,et al.  Science and Governance: taking European Knowledge Society Seriously , 2007 .

[33]  N. Krishnamurthy RISK—Philosophical Perspectives Edited by Tim Lewens , 2009 .

[34]  P. Bourdieu,et al.  Language and Symbolic Power , 1991 .

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

[36]  A. Honneth,et al.  Redistribution or Recognition?: A Political-Philosophical Exchange , 2003 .

[37]  Dennis F. Thompson,et al.  Why deliberative democracy , 2004 .

[38]  S. Franklin Science as Culture, Cultures of Science , 1995 .

[39]  Archon Fung Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance , 2006 .