On the local constitution of global futures. Science and democratic engagement in a decentred world.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5324/njsts.v3i2.2163Keywords:
Public engagement with science, concensus conferences, environment, democracy, decenterednessAbstract
This essay focuses on the relationship between public engagement with science and larger discussions of globalized and decentred democracy. In particular, it asks whether public engagement on very specific issues and in the form of carefully-planned exercises should be seen as a distraction (or irrelevance) with regard to the democratic process or else as an enhancement and invigoration of it. It will be argued that we cannot tackle these issues of engagement and democracy without considering the wider challenges of governing what are very often globalized, socio-culturally complex and generally-wicked problems. There is a tendency for engagement initiatives to operate at the regional or national levels. But what happens when the issues are presented as crossing borders and boundaries, and when the traditional centres of power seem sidelined by the expressed requirement for ‘global’ governance? Going further, issues of science and technology governance often involve a special concern with the future or, more specifically, the multiple futures suggested by science, technology and innovation and their relationship to our sense of the present. I will suggest that the heterogeneous practices of scientific governance represent both a challenge when it comes to issues such as climate change and global food security but also an important focus for STS scholarship. Finally, and in the spirit of more grounded conclusions, I suggest six ‘red blooded’ principles for public engagement which can at least get us started in addressing these issues.
Downloads
References
Barben, D., E. Fisher et al. 2008. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration. In Hackett, E.J., O. Amsterdamska et al. (eds.) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Third Edition. MIT Press. 979-1000.
Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: towards a new modernity. Sage.
Blok, A. 2007. Experts on public trial: on democratizing expertise through a Danish consensus conference. Public Understanding of Science. 16(2): 163-182.
Brown, N. and M. Michael. 2003. A Sociology of Expectations: Retrospecting Prospects and Prospecting Retrospects. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 15(1): 3-18.
Callon, M., P. Lascoumes and Y. Barthe. 2009. Acting in an Uncertain World: an essay on technical democracy. MIT Press.
Davies, S.R. 2013. Constituting public engagement: meanings and genealogies of PEST in two UK studies. Science Communication. 35(6): 687-707.
Dean, M. 1999. Governmentality: power and rule in modern society. Sage.
The Economist. 2014. What’s gone wrong with democracy? March 1st: 43-48.
Felt, U., D. Barben et al. 2013. Science in Society: caring for our futures in turbulent times. European Science Foundation.
Felt, U. and M. Fochler. 2010. Machineries for making publics: inscribing and de-scribing publics in public engagement. Minerva. 48: 219-238.
Funtowicz, S. and J. R. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures. 25(7): 739-55.
Hagendijk, R. and A. Irwin. 2006. Public deliberation and governance: engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva. 44: 167-184.
Holthaus, E. 2015. The point of no return: climate change nightmares are already here. Rolling Stone. August 5th.
Horlick-Jones, T., J. Walls et al. 2007. The GM Debate: risk, politics and public engagement. Routledge.
Horst, M. 2008. In search of dialogue: staging science communication in consensus conferences. In Cheng, D., M. Claessens et al. (eds.) Communicating Science in Social Context: new models, new practices. Springer. 259-274.
Horst, M. 2010. Collective Closure?: public debate as the solution to controversies about science and technology. Acta Sociologica. 53(3): 195-211.
Horst, M. and A. Irwin. 2010. Nations at ease with radical knowledge: on consensus, consensusing and false consensusness. Social Studies of Science. 40(1): 105-126.
Horst, M., A. Irwin et al. 2007. European scientific governance in a global context: resonances, implications and reflections. IDS Bulletin. 38(5): 6-20.
House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology. 2000. Science and Society. The Stationery Office.
Irwin, A. 2006. The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science. 36(2): 299-320.
Irwin, A. and M. Horst. 2016. Engaging in a decentred world: overflows, ambiguities and the governance of climate change. In Chilvers, J. and M. Kearnes (eds.) Remaking Participation: science, environment and emergent publics. Routledge. 64-80.
Irwin, A. and M. Michael. 2006. Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Open University Press.
Irwin, A., T. E. Jensen and K. Jones. 2013. The good, the bad and the perfect: criticizing engagement practice. Social Studies of Science. 43(1): 118-135.
Jasanoff, S. 2003. ‘Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science.’ Minerva. 41(3): 223-44.
Jasanoff, S. and S-H. Kim. 2009. Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Regulation in the United States and South Korea. Minerva. 47(2): 119-146.
Jensen, C.B. 2005. Citizen projects and consensus-building at the Danish Board of Technology: on experiments in democracy. Acta Sociologica. 48(3): 221-35.
Latour, B. 2004. Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry. 30: 225-248.
Leach, M., I. Scoones and B. Wynne (eds.) 2005. Science and Citizens: globalization and the challenge of engagement. Zed Books.
Lezaun, J. and L. Soneryd. 2007. Consulting citizens: technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science. 16(3): 279-97.
Lidskog, R., L. Soneryd and Y. Uggla. 2009. Transboundary Risk Governance. Earthscan.
Mejlgaard, N., C. Bloch et al. 2012. Monitoring Policy and Research Activities on Science and Society in Europe (MASIS). Final Synthesis Report. Office of the European Union.
Nishizawa, M. 2005. Citizen deliberations on science and technology and their social environments: case study on the Japanese consensus conference on GM crops. Science and Public Policy. 32(6): 479–89.
Stirling, A. 2005. Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. In Leach, M., I. Scoones and B. Wynne. (eds.) Science and Citizens: globalization and the challenge of engagement. Zed Books. 218-31.
Sundström, G., L. Soneryd and S. Furusten. 2010. Organizing Democracy: the construction of agency in practice. Edward Elgar.
Sundqvist, G. 2014. ‘Heating up’ or ‘cooling down’? Analysing and performing broadened participation in technoscientific conflicts. Environment and Planning A. 46(9): 2065- 2079.
Welsh, I. and B. Wynne. 2013. Science, scientism and imaginaries of publics in the UK: passive objects, incipient threats. Science as Culture. 22(4): 540-566.
Wynne, B. 2006. Public engagement as a means of restoring trust in science: hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics. 9: 211-220.
Yearley, S. 1996. Sociology, Environmentalism, Globalization. Sage.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
All content in NJSTS is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. This means that anyone is free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) or adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the material as they like, provided they give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
