Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

How can diverse viewpoints be included in public engagement with science while preserving the merits of expert knowledge? Drawing on the eDemOS deliberative platform used in the Czech Open Science debate, this paper explores how digital deliberation both enables and limits inclusion.

Paper long abstract

Public engagement with science promises more inclusive and democratic forms of knowledge production. However, participatory initiatives often face a persistent tension between the inclusion of diverse viewpoints and the preservation of expert knowledge and epistemic standards. How can we include a diverse group of people and viewpoints while preserving the merits of expert knowledge?

This paper explores this question by examining how digital deliberative infrastructures shape participation and mediate interactions between different forms of expertise. The analysis draws on experiences from the AMULET project, which develops advanced materials with potential applications ranging from energy technologies to medicine. Recognizing the broader societal implications of these technologies, the project includes STS-based activities aimed at mapping their social context and supporting research and innovation in line with the principles of Open Science.

The paper focuses on an online discussion conducted through the deliberative platform eDemOS, which accompanied the public hearing Making Sense of Open Science held at the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague in September 2025. The discussion involved 233 participants and used several participatory tools, including discussion forums, proposal development and voting, and the card-based method Imagine OS.

Using this case, the paper reflects on how the design of digital deliberation platforms structures participation and shapes whose voices become visible in public engagement processes. While such platforms may create opportunities for broader participation and dialogue, the analysis also highlights some of the practical and conceptual limits of digital deliberation in addressing the tension between democratic inclusion and expert knowledge.