Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Iñaki Goñi
(University of Edinburgh)
Eugenia Rodrigues (University of Edinburgh)
Send message to Convenors
- Discussant:
-
Eugenia Rodrigues
(University of Edinburgh)
- Format:
- Traditional Open Panel
- Location:
- HG-07A16
- Sessions:
- Friday 19 July, -
Time zone: Europe/Amsterdam
Short Abstract:
This panel interrogates the extent to which the taken-for-granted ideas and self-imposed limitations of this field are being shaken, and, in so doing, asks whether processes of reconfiguration have already started to emerge.
Long Abstract:
Public participation in science and technology is a research topic that has systematically grown over the years. As Bucchi and Trench document in their 2017 article "Science Communication and Science in Society: A Conceptual Review in Ten Keywords", the development of this topic has been followed by the adherence to and critique of specific language and concepts, such as "engagement", "scientific cultures" or "expertise". This apparent commitment to an established lexicon has implications. As Bauer, Allum and Miller (2007) noted, it operates as a marker of “tribal identity”. Yet, in the process of constituting STS’s “tribal” or collective identity within this field, there is, potentially, the loss of some vitality, a diminished inclination to scrutinize and challenge long-standing assumptions, along with the exclusion of possible new lines of enquiry. There is a difference between creating a temporary consensus and constructing a canon.
In this open panel, we aim to start a discussion that disrupts the ‘state of the art’ in public participation in STS. Possible questions to be examined in this panel include: what have STS researchers excluded from the field (e.g.: education, tarnished by the association with the deficit model?), and what has risen to the peak in the current idiom of public participation (e.g. is co-production taken as a marker of high-quality participation?). Moreover, are there other, possibly uninvited, ‘intrusions’ that are further disturbing our stable assumptions? For example, where and how to place and make sense of the incredibly fast-paced, expanded AI-enhanced modes of citizen participation?
Potential topics for the session are:
• Taken-for-granted and overlooked concepts in participation
• New ideas to open up participation
• Radical, emergent or transformative ideas/cases in participation
• Questions and provocations to challenge the canon
• Cases/ideas highlighting the understated, "uncool", non-innovative aspects of participation
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Friday 19 July, 2024, -Paper short abstract:
This paper presents a twofold conceptual exploration. On the one hand, I explore how technology is mobilised in the practice and theory of the field of Deliberative Democracy. On the other hand, I discuss the role that citizen participation has played in the field of Science and Technology Studies.
Paper long abstract:
Calls for democratising technology are pervasive in current technological discourse. Indeed, participating publics have been mobilised as a core normative aspiration in Science, and Technology Studies, driven by a critical examination of "expertise". In a sense, democratic deliberation became the knee-jerk response to the question of responsible technological governance, and science and technology communication. Calls for technifying democracy are ever more pervasive in deliberative democracy’s discourse. Many new digital tools (“civic technologies”) are shaping democratic practice while navigating a complex political economy. Moreover, Natural Language Processing and AI have provided novel alternatives for systematising large-scale participation, automated moderation and setting up participation. In a sense, emerging digital technologies became the knee-jerk response to the question of how to augment collective intelligence and reconnect deliberation to mass politics. In this paper, I explore the mutual shaping of (deliberative) democracy and technology (studies), highlighting that without careful consideration, both risk being reduced to superficial symbols in discourses inclined towards quick solutionism.
Paper short abstract:
Citizens’ engagement in science and innovation can help to address complex societal challenges, but it requires institutional support to flourish. Together with policymakers, we explore views on and policies by research funders in the Netherlands and look for leverage points to improve their work.
Paper long abstract:
Citizens’ and public engagement in science and innovation is increasingly heralded as a way to support sustainability transformations and address complex societal challenges, both in the Netherlands and abroad. But whether these collaborations are meaningful (here defined as contributing to the democratization of knowledge development) or not, depends on many factors (e.g. time, flexibility, and institutional support) and does not come easily within the current science system. Indeed, a growing body of scholarship is exploring what is needed to enable, monitor and evaluate meaningful citizens’ engagement, with researchers looking at questions both big (e.g. the repoliticization of inclusion, Turnhout et al. 2019) and small (e.g. flattening power hierarchies among stakeholders, Kareem et al. 2022).
Within this broad field, we zoom in on the role of research funding organizations (RFOs) and the design of research funding programs, given their influence on how research is conducted and where and how research capacity is utilized (Schneider et al. 2023). Based on interviews and workshops with policymakers, we provide an overview and analysis of the current policy landscape and dominant perceptions surrounding citizens’ engagement in science. We show, for example, that there exists (language) confusion of almost Babylonian proportion about what participating in science can or should look like, and about who is responsible for and capable of guiding projects in the right direction. From this, we distill key challenges that research funding bodies face in and we propose solutions to catalyze more meaningful collaborations.
Paper short abstract:
Living Labs (LL) form an ecosystem of four co-creating stakeholders: Academia, Industry, Politics and the Public. What can we learn from them regarding public participation? The presentation will delve into the findings of a scoping review, examining LLs through the lens of science communication.
Paper long abstract:
Living Labs (LL) are becoming increasingly popular, not only in academia but also in R&D environments or commercial contexts [Wehrmann et al., 2023; Wershler et al., 2022]. Currently, it seems that they are emerging wherever some kind of public involvement is intended, making the term "LL" seem as much a concept as a strategic framing. But what are LLs?
They are utilized to study, test, co-design, and enhance new technologies within an ecosystem of four co-creating stakeholders: academia, industry, politics, and the public [Hossain et al. 2019; Esashika et al., 2023]. In this sense, they also fulfill important roles as sites of modern science communication. Different stakeholders collaborate as equal partners, and established boundaries between external "the public" and internal "academia" fall apart. Therefore, LLs offer interesting perspectives as examples of public participation in science and technology (PPST). Surprisingly LLs have so far received little to almost no attention from the perspective of science communication.
The presentation will delve into the findings of a scoping review, investigating a corpus of more than 1000 peer reviewed articles and reviews on LLs from different disciplines. It will examine how LLs and their stakeholder ecosystem are organized through the lens of science communication and further explore the practices within LLs to engage these stakeholders. The aim is for LLs to be recognized as previously overlooked sites of science communication, where PPST is already utilized by concept. Ultimately, the implementation of PPST in LLs is to be critically reviewed and put up for discussion.
Paper short abstract:
This paper intends to question what we have taken for granted in public participation in techno-scientific controversies by employing digital methods and techniques to study a high-speed train as a controversy.
Paper long abstract:
Our society is facing ever more complex techno-scientific controversies, ranging from urban infrastructures to emerging technologies. From this viewpoint, several STS scholars have praised the so-called ‘participatory turn’, in which laypeople can provide societal resources and knowledge to help solve such challenges. However, problems continue to be part of this framework. The laypeople-scientists relationship has tended to be based on a top-down approach, where science maintains a higher position at the expense of ordinary people and their participation in the debate. But current issues are wicked and need new perspectives: the co-production of knowledge has been considered a consequent evolution for better participation of laypeople.
This paper intends to shed light on these assumptions by questioning what we have taken for granted so far in such a participatory turn. To do so, it maps, according to the cartography of controversies approach, the Turin-Lyon railway line, an infrastructure that should connect Italy and France via the Alps and has generated many controversies in Italy, both among scientists and citizens over the past 30 years. After collecting data using web scraping, the paper analyses the unstructured corpus with content analysis techniques to delve into such a topic. Using digital methods and techniques to study the Turin-Lyon railway line contributes both from empirical and practical viewpoints thanks to making visible processes in this phenomenon that may be hidden in other approaches.