Short Abstract

This panel explores how public engagement with science initiatives manage the tension between the inclusion of diverse groups, people and viewpoints while preserving the merits of expert knowledge.

Description

The inclusion of diverse stakeholders in democratic decision-making around technological and scientific issues is a core promise of much ‘participatory’ work in STS and science communication. However, this promise of inclusive engagement has largely remained unfulfilled since only a few science dialogues have included truly different participants and viewpoints. In fact, the opposite appears to be true: participants are often white, college-educated men with similar viewpoints who do not represent contemporary European societies. While self-selection mechanisms may be at play, another reason lies in the design and organisation of these public dialogues. Indeed, there appears to be a reluctance to open up these dialogues to potentially ‘dangerous’ participants such as conspiracy theorists, Great Replacement adherents, anti-vaxxers, climate sceptics and anti-LGBTQIA conservatives.

Some argue that these people are legitimately excluded because accepting participants who (allegedly) do not accept basic epistemic norms governing science would deteriorate the quality of the dialogue by spending too much time on ‘irrational’ and anti-scientific convictions. Others contend that the inclusion of all kinds of citizens should be the sine qua non of public engagement, particularly when building resilient futures in a context of crisis and polarisation. They fear that excluding people who adopt a critical stance towards science only generates a ‘manageable’ conflict among like-minded participants, which may intensify social antagonisms and incentivise these excluded groups to settle their conflict in undemocratic and potentially violent ways.

In short, the “more-than-now” question for STS and this panel is: how can we include a diverse group of people and viewpoints, while preserving the merits of expert knowledge? What happens when participants who adopt a critical stance towards science are invited to public dialogues on knowledge-intensive issues? This panel specifically invites empirical contributions that deal with the particular inclusion/exclusion dynamics governing public engagement efforts, though philosophical reflections on this question are also welcome.

Propose paper