Sage Publications (www.sagepublications.com)

Public Understanding of Science

Public Understand. Sci. 20(6) (2011) 826–845

Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology Ana Delgado, Kamilla Lein Kjølberg and Fern Wickson

In this paper, we present a study of Science and Technology Studies (STS) perspectives on public engagement, specifically focusing on the gap between theory and practice. In aiming to develop a conceptual map of this gap, we identify five top topics of tension. These are related to the general questions of: “Why should we do public engagement?,” “Who should be involved?,” “How should it be organised?,” “When should it be done?” and “Where should it be grounded?” We employ nanotechnology as a paradigmatic case to help us explore these tensions. In practice, the choices one makes in relation to one topic of tension may influence the choices available for others. Enhanced awareness of the presence of these tensions, as well as their interconnections, can help build reflexive capacity and make visible the various alternative routes available for STS practitioners working in the “age of engagement.” Keywords:  nanotechnology, public engagement, public participation, STS 1. Introduction: STS in the age of engagement This paper is a product of a feeling of frustration that has emerged while working within the Science and Technology Studies (STS) community as the notion of public engagement is coming of age. In a sense, our frustration stems from the existence of competing demands in the attempt to move theoretical ideals into the realities of practice. The three of us come from different parts of the world and travelled individualised routes into our current positions as STS researchers. Through our encounters with STS though, we learnt to be critical of an unquestioned authority of scientific knowledge and received the idea that public participation was a necessary supplement in decision-making relating to science and technology. However, while our mentors presented us with the idea that public participation was the solution, we increasingly feel that we have inherited it as the problem. This became particularly apparent when we began collaborating on a nanotechnology governance project in 2008. For nanotechnology1 there is a recurring claim, from the STS community and other advocates of enhanced democratisation of science policy, that there is now a unique opportunity to put the theoretical propositions of inclusive governance into practice during an early stage of development. While we are excited about these new opportunities, we also feel the weight of having to prove the value of the theoretical solutions fought for by our predecessors.

© The Author(s), 2010. Reprints and permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

ISSN 0963-6625 DOI: 10.1177/0963662510363054

Delgado et al.: Public engagement coming of age   827

What may be termed STS’ “age of engagement” has proceeded as a series of turns. These turns, and their interactions with different strands of STS, are not the focus of this paper. However, in a general sense, we would argue that one has seen a shift within STS scholarship from a primarily descriptive focus on the processes of scientific knowledge production, in what was originally called the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) (e.g. Knorr-Cetina, 1981; Latour and Woolgar, 1986; Pickering, 1995), through a more normative approach to science policy (e.g. Jasanoff, 1995; Miller and Edwards, 2001; Guston and Sarewitz, 2006), to a focus on developing practically oriented strategies for tackling the challenges of the science/policy interface (all to some extent involving the concept of public engagement). With recent political and economic priority given to the field of nanotechnology, new opportunities arise to put these tools and strategies to the test. During this time, STS has also entered a new situation of political influence, where STS scholars have increasingly begun to play an active and influential role in science policy, not only by producing (and contesting) meanings in theoretical debates, but also by acting as practitioners, organisers and evaluators of participation/engagement exercises (Williams, 2008). In this paper, we use both the terms public participation (PP) and public engagement (PE) simultaneously (PP/PE). This reflects the way in which these terms are largely used indistinctively in academic texts and in policy documents (e.g. Nowotny et al., 2001; Wynne and Felt, 2007).2 Since around 2000, however, there has been an increasing tendency within STS to favour the term “public engagement” over “public participation.” The reasons for, and meanings of, this shift remain poorly articulated. While it may be argued that linguistically, “engagement” implies something closer to generating interest and “participation” to active involvement, it is not clear that this interpretation is used consistently in the literature. We suggest that the current preference for the term PE is related to the emergence of the concept of “upstream engagement” (Wilsdon, 2005) and particularly the prominence of this term for nanotechnology (often portrayed within the STS community as the paradigmatic test case for the concept) (Macnaghten et al., 2005; Pidgeon and Rogers-Hayden, 2007; Barben et al., 2008). PE could therefore be taken to refer to both a need to generate early interest, and a more inclusive form of participation. The lack of clear definitions of PP/PE may relate to a lack of agreement on how inclusion of the public should take place in practice (Rowe and Frewer, 2004; Lengwiler, 2008). Notably, despite diverging terminology and arguments, there is an apparent consensus that PP/PE should be something different than the so-called “deficit model” (Lewenstein, 2003; Scott and Du Plessis, 2008). Hence, PP/PE should not simply be about generating public acceptance through the provision of information on science and technology, but about citizens’ active involvement in the development of socio-technical trajectories. The increasing institutionalisation of PP/PE exercises has, however, come under criticism from some STS scholars as representing a response to a new type of deficit model – a public deficit of trust in experts and science (Irwin, 2001, 2006; Wynne, 2006; Rogers-Hayden and Pidgeon, 2007; Tutton, 2007; Chilvers, 2008). The fear is that where science has lost public confidence, PP/ PE exercises are being used to deactivate scepticism and opposition to new technologies. It has been argued that PP/PE exercises commonly reproduce assumptions and consequences of the deficit model, whereby science still proceeds by excluding lay views instead of opening up for real dialogue (Wynne, 2006, 2007a). In line with this, STS scholars have recommended that it is important to “mind the gap” between the theoretical ideals of PP/PE and the realities of their implementation in practice (Irwin, 2001; Wynne, 2006). It is this gap between the theory and practice of PP/PE in STS that is our focus in this paper. Some authors have suggested that STS should contribute to reducing this gap by providing

828   Public Understanding of Science 20(6)

more precise definitions (Rowe and Frewer, 2005), while others focus on producing prescriptive and practically oriented theories (Rip et al., 1995; Collins and Evans, 2007). Notwithstanding the importance of these approaches, our aim in this paper is different. We aim to provide a “map of the gap” by synthesising and exploring important topics of tension around PP/PE within the “epistemic community” of STS which appear in the shift from theory into practice. By tensions here we mean places where opposing ideas about PP/PE pull against each other and generate stress and strain. In the main body of this paper we present five “top topics of tension” within the field of STS in its age of engagement. In a general sense, these are: (1) Why should PP/PE be done?, (2) Who should be involved?, (3) How should it be initiated?, (4) When is the right time to do it? and (5) Where should it be grounded? While there is a general consensus on the importance of PP/PE in STS discourse, tension arises through the existence of competing answers to these questions. While different views coexist in theory, tension between them becomes acute during the shift into practice when choices must be made in concrete terms. When these choices are not well justified or lack transparency, confusion and debate can arise around the appropriateness or success of particular PP/PE endeavours. As a conceptual map of important tensions that become acute in the shift from theory to practice, we first present these topics separately. However, in real cases, the five topics of tension are normally interlinked and impact each other. Therefore, in Section 4, we take our analysis further by exploring the entanglement of these five topics of tension in the case of nanotechnology. Our concluding argument is that disentangling the tensions helps us see how, in practice, the choices one makes in relation to one topic of tension may influence the choices available for others. Indeed presenting them in this way helps us see more clearly how crossing the gap between theory and practice currently demands choices and compromises between competing theoretical ideals. Enhanced awareness of the presence of these tensions and their interconnections can help build the reflexive capacity of STS practitioners and ensure that the current opportunities to benefit from greater public involvement in science and technology are not squandered through a failure to see the important challenges and choices that must be made in shifting from theory into practice. 2. Methods The research for this paper was conducted in two phases and in two different modes. The first phase (P1) was exploratory. It was based on participatory observation performed during the joint conference of the US based Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) and the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST) in Rotterdam in August 2008. Before this conference, we analysed the book of abstracts, selecting all the sessions in which PP/PE appeared as central. We then divided these sessions between us, attending and taking notes on different parallel sessions (see Table 1). In later analysis of our notes and impressions from the conference, we identified a set of repeating keywords (e.g. lay–knowledge, expertise, deliberation, science democratisation, governance, civic epistemologies). Through a process of clustering related concepts, we saw our keywords crystallising into three main themes: the construction of expertise and publics (CEP), the organisation of PP/PE exercises (ORG), and the dynamics of dialogue (DOD). P1 provided us with a snapshot of the discourse within the STS community around PP/ PE at a particular time. In order to further explore whether these themes accurately captured the key issues around PP/PE in STS discourse, we performed a literature review (phase 2, P2).

Delgado et al.: Public engagement coming of age   829 Table 1. The 4S/EASST presentations that were taken into consideration in the making of the five topics of tension in P2 4S/EASST presentation title

Theme

Question

1. D  econstructing and Reconstructing Participation in Environmental Governance. J. Paavola & A. Wesselink 2. Upstream STS Engagement in TA Regime: the Development of Regional Technology Assessment in Belgium. P. Delvenne, S. Brunet & C. Fallon 3. Crafting Genetic Citizens. K. Taussig 4. The Rules of Engagement: Flexibility and Struggle within the Practice of Dialogue. S. Davies 5. Scientists Reflect on an Engagement World. K. Burchell 6. Terms of Engagement. A. Nordmann & A. Schwarz 7. No Room for Doubt: Public Engagement, Science Policy and Democracy at the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. R. Doubleday 8. Securing the Future or a Threat to Democracy? Stem Cell Research Policy Debates in South Korea. S. Kim 9. Interpellating and Mobilizing “the Public”: Public Participation in Scientific Governance and Genetic Research. K. Braun 10. The Spread of Ideas and the Travel of Public Deliberation Methods. L. Soneryd 11. Institutionalization of Ethical Expertise: the National Ethics Councils in Germany and Sweden. T. Kulawik 12. What Are We Talking About when Engaging with “Nano”? Defining “Nano” as Discursive Strategy in the German Risk Debate on Nanomaterials. M. Erlemann 13. Data Enrollment in the Implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive – Competing Environmental and Economic Discourses in Political and Participatory Processes. J. Behagel 14. Images of “the Public” in European Nanopolicy as an Externalisation of Risks. J. Schirmer 15. Collaborative Mass Knowledge Production Online: Cross-Cultural Comparison of Variation in the Communities of Wikipedians. N. Hara & P. Shachaf 16. “But You Can’t Disregard Peoples’ Values!” Policy Lay-Men’s Critique of Evidence-Based Policy-Making. K. Fernler 17. A Rat in Parliament: Scientism, Stem Cell Classifications and the Framing of Public Engagement. N. Marks 18. Acting with Science, Policy and Publics. R. Du Plessis, R. Hindmarsh & K. Cronin 19. Framing or Foreclosing? R. Williams & G. Haddow 20. Co-Creating Nano-Imaginaries. M. Deblonde 21. Public Engagement in Science and Technology: Reflections on the Meaning of Participation and its Negotiation in an Interactive Technology Assessment. M. Van Oudheusden 22. Communicating Nano: “Breaks” and “Black Holes” between Basic Research and Consumer Products. C. Greiffenhagen & S. Randles 23. Public Engagement in Nanotechnology in France: Uncertainties and Construction of Meanings. B. Laurent 24. New Thoughts about Old Issues or Old Thoughts about New Issues? Re-Conceptualising STS Approaches to Engagement. A. Irwin & T. Elgaard

DOD

Why

ORG

Why/How

ORG/CEP CEP/ORG

Who/How How/Who

DOD/ORG DOD CEP/ORG

Why/How Why Who/When

CEP/ORG

How/Who

CEP/ORG

How/Who

ORG

Where

CEP

Who/How

DOD

Why

DOD

Why

CEP

How/Who

ORG

Where

CEP

Who

CEP

Who/How

ORG

How

DOD/ORG ORG DOD/ORG

Why/When How/When Why/When

ORG

How/When

ORG/DOD

Why/Where

ORG/CEP

How/When/Why

830   Public Understanding of Science 20(6) Table 1. (Continued) 4S/EASST presentation title

Theme

Question

25. Acting with Engagement? Policy-Makers’ Conceptualisations of Public Engagement. M. Schulte zu Berge 26. Publics Performing Publics: of PiGs, PiPs and Politics. M. Michael 27. Scientific and Other Expertise in Risk Governance. W. Bijker 28. Data or Deliberation, Performance Measurement or Citizen Involvement, Output or Input Legitimacy? E. Turnhout, B. Broekhans, B. Arts & H. de Bruijn

CEP

Who

CEP CEP ORG/CEP

Who/How Who How/Who

In this review we analysed three key STS journals: “Science, Technology and Human Values,” “Social Studies of Science” and “Public Understanding of Science.” We chose these journals because they have the highest ranking impact factors in the ISI Web of Knowledge.3 We restricted our investigation to publications from January 2000 to the time of our research (October 2008). We included in our analysis all papers containing “participation” and/or “engagement” as keywords4 (n = 46). Secondarily, we took into account papers containing any of the keywords identified in P1 (n = 64). In addition, we paid special attention to papers and books referred to repeatedly during the 4S/EASST Conference (such as Collins and Evans, 2002; Wynne, 1996; Jasanoff, 2003a; Irwin, 2006 and Nowotny et al., 2001). After reading these papers, discussing them between us, and comparing them with our observational notes from P1, we expanded and re-classified the three original key themes around the general questions of: why, who, when, how, where. Thus, P2 built on and expanded the themes identified in P1. At this point, we found it useful to begin talking about the problems and challenges of PP/PE as representing five “top topics of tension.”5 After having sketched the five topics of tension, it became natural for us to explore how these played out in the case of nanotechnology. This was because the three of us were employed on a nanotechnology research project, nanotechnology is characteristically portrayed as a “unique opportunity” to put the theoretical ideal of upstream PP/PE into practice (Rogers-Hayden and Pidgeon, 2007; Powell and Kleinman, 2008; Table 1: 7, 14, 20, and 22) and as a nascent field, the expectations are high for nanotechnology to be the case where STS theories of PP/PE can prove their worth in practice. 3. Five top topics of tension in the STS age of engagement This section presents what we see as the five top topics of tension within STS in its age of engagement. The rationale: Why should PP/PE be done? The tension that is perhaps the most fundamental stems from different motivations behind efforts to engage the public, i.e. different answers to the question of: Why should PP/PE be done? Stirling (2008) has drawn on work and terminology from Fiorino (1990) and describes three rationales for PP/PE: instrumental, substantive and normative. PP/PE exercises can be said to be motivated by an instrumental rationale when they aim to achieve a particular predefined end, for instance restoration of legitimacy and public trust. A substantive rationale suggests that public engagement will actually lead to (substantively) better results, e.g. for decision-making. Unlike that of the instrumental rationale, the outcome here is not defined

Delgado et al.: Public engagement coming of age   831

beforehand as it is precisely the point that the best result will emerge through the process of PP/PE. When public engagement is driven by a normative rationale, it is seen as “the right thing to do.” In this case, it is the process rather than the result that is in focus and the motivation is based on a particular normative commitment (e.g. often an ideal of democracy). In essence then, the rationales represent a difference between doing PP/PE: to achieve a predefined end; to produce a better result; and because it is the “right thing to do.” In the descriptions of some STS authors, the interplay between science and society is portrayed as a plurality of views (different values and interests) engaged in a kind of a “framing battle” (see for example Wynne, 1996; Goven, 2003; Irwin and Michael, 2003; Roth et al., 2003; Jasanoff, 2005; Irwin, 2006; Stenekes et al., 2006). Within this framing battle, decisionmakers, experts and the public can be seen as competing to define not only the agenda of science and technology, but also the rationale for citizen involvement. Often, PP/PE exercises are justified within STS on the basis of the normative values of openness, transparency and plurality, and it is argued that these can help introduce reflexivity and awareness of different framings into decision-making processes (Goven, 2003). Differing somewhat from this are those who advocate PP/PE in science and technology with a specific aim to produce better decisions (Rowe and Frewer, 2000; Hamlett, 2003), often through the inclusion of all “relevant” expertise (Collins and Evans, 2002; Evans and Plows, 2007). In the latter example, PP/ PE is motivated by a substantive rather than a normative rationale. While STS scholars generally criticise the instrumental rationales of policy makers, it is worth noting that in some cases, in practice, they themselves facilitate PP/PE to satisfy predefined research goals (an instrumental rationale). Tension particularly arises when there is a lack of transparency around the rationales motivating particular exercises and/or when exercises have been theoretically argued for according to one rationale (e.g. normative or substantive) but then designed, enacted and/or evaluated according to another (e.g. instrumental). While Stirling’s (2008) re-introduction of the three rationales for PP/PE has been useful for many in STS, in practice, the distinctions are not always so sharp. For example, some scholars advocate PP/PE exercises because they create “capacities for social empowerment” (Stirling, 2008: 269, see also Rowe and Frewer, 2000; Evans and Plows, 2007; Carolan, 2008; Chilvers, 2008). This could be viewed as an instrumental rationale for PP/PE (aimed at achieving the particular end of social empowerment), as stemming from and supporting a normative commitment (e.g. to democracy), or as creating the conditions necessary for better decision-making (e.g. an active and informed citizenry). What is important to recognise, however, is the general way in which the existence of different rationales creates potential tension in the design of approaches to PP/PE and criteria for evaluation. The tension generated by competing rationales is also closely linked with another: that between democratic openness and technocratic closure (Stirling, 2005, 2008), or in other words, between inclusive governance and decision-making efficiency (see Carolan, 2008). PP/ PE exercises may open up for deliberation between views, as well as close down dialogue through emphasising the importance of consensus and decision-making (Stirling, 2005; Carolan, 2008). To achieve participatory decision-making, it is arguably important to combine both stages (Burgess et al., 2007). When citizens, policy makers and experts express irreconcilable views (among themselves or between each other) the dilemma arises of how and when to reach a decision (the problem of closure). STS approaches to PP/PE face the challenge of providing ways, in theory and practice, to not only open up but to also close down. In practice, the problem of closure manifests acutely within structured/institutionalised exercises of PP/PE specifically aimed at generating inputs for decision-making. A number of STS authors have claimed that these exercises often miss possibilities for plural framings and dialogue by starting with a goal of achieving consensus (Rowe et al., 2005; Irwin, 2006;

832   Public Understanding of Science 20(6)

Wynne, 2006). This view entails a critique of the instrumental rationale for PP/PE exercises. Notably in this respect, at the 4S/EASST Conference some participants referred to the “tyranny of participation” (Table 1: 1). They claimed that in today’s science policy, PP/PE is becoming an institutional routine within a technocratic regime, not subjected to substantive critique. An open recognition of challenges, pitfalls and tensions is an important first step to counter this trend. This paper aims to contribute to this, and the first challenge identified here is the existence of competing rationales for PP/PE and the tension arising in practice from a lack of transparency around the rationale motivating a given PP/PE event. Expertise and publics: Who should be included in PP/PE? The second tension is that between different ideas of who should be involved in PP/PE. Some STS scholars have argued that more public involvement is not necessarily desirable or advisable in every instance (see Barns et al., 2000; Bijker, 2003; Hamlett, 2003; Rip, 2003; Evans and Plows, 2007; Carolan, 2008; Lengwiler, 2008) and clearly the direct involvement of all members of the public in techno-scientific development is not feasible (Jasanoff, 2003a). We therefore identify tension between different approaches to deciding who is a “relevant” participant and what criteria this decision should be based on. Wynne has recommended a radical dismantling of the expert–lay distinction (e.g. see Wynne, 1996) and may thereby be interpreted to support the ideal that all citizens have a role in science and technology development (see Wynne, 2003). Others make distinctions, not only between different types of “relevant” expertise, but also between different kinds of “relevant” publics. Some STS authors, for example, have chosen to highlight the heterogeneous and dynamic nature of “the public” (Tytler et al., 2001; Michael, 2002; Scott and Du Plessis, 2008; Table 1: 4, 18 and 26), and how different “publics” relate to science in a variety of ways (Irwin and Michael, 2003). For instance, publics may be concerned, interested, informed or none of these. The existence of different answers to the question of which of these “publics” should be involved in PP/PE generates tension in STS theory, but becomes particularly acute in practice where decisions have to be made. The problem of achieving “representativeness” in practical exercises of PP/PE is particularly prominent in STS discourse (Hamlett, 2003; Allspaw, 2004; Rowe et al., 2004; Chilvers, 2008; Lengwiler, 2008; Table 1: 28). Concern is usually with the extent to which participants can be seen to represent “the public.” When there is a desire to include citizens that are interested, concerned and informed, this tends to favour the inclusion of particular “interest groups” or “stakeholders,” which often pulls against those preferring to gauge the opinion of a more “neutral” majority (Evans and Plows, 2007). A well known debate about the extension of participation was initiated by Harry Collins and Robert Evans (2002, 2007), who proposed a normative theory of expertise and remarked that in many cases “participation by the public should have been decreased, because their expertise was insufficient to make a contribution” (2002: 253). Collins and Evans (C&E) have argued that while every citizen should be included in political decision-making, only those with some kind of relevant expertise should participate in “technical” decision-making. Technical decisions are said to be those more internal to science, while political decisions refer to broader, socio-political aspects of science and technology development. For C&E, citizens who are relevant for inclusion in technical decision-making should have “contributory expertise,” which they restrict to knowledge commensurable with science (Rip, 2003). Science therefore appears as a privileged frame, one that imposes closure and excludes competing views. This has been one of the main critiques of C&E’s theory of expertise. A related critique has concerned their division between technical and political phases of decision-making (Jasanoff, 2003b; Rip, 2003; Wynne, 2003). Indeed, this division represents a foundational

Delgado et al.: Public engagement coming of age   833

tension within STS: between those who believe that facts and values are intrinsically intertwined (and therefore that the technical is always simultaneously political), and those who believe that while external socio-economical interests influence and are influenced by science, the scientific process of knowledge generation has a technical core where access to “facts” is possible.6 It is this fundamental disagreement that C&E’s theory of expertise brings to the fore. During the 4S/EASST conference, their approach was debated during both regular sessions (Table 1: 27 and 28) and a specific session chaired by the authors themselves. Tension was clearly apparent in these discussions as differing views on the “relevant” participants in PP/PE practice pulled against each other. Invited or uninvited: How should PP/PE be initiated? PP/PE is usually characterised as either top-down organised processes or bottom-up grassroots phenomena (Epstein, 1995; Irwin, 1995; Zavestoski et al., 2002; Irwin and Michael, 2003; Rowe and Frewer, 2005; Scott-Murdock et al., 2005; Brown et al., 2006; Drake, 2006; Goven, 2006; Iles, 2007; McCormick, 2007; Soneryd, 2007). In line with this distinction, PP/PE has also been presented as “invited” or “uninvited” (Wynne, 2007b). The third topic of tension is between PP/PE framed and arranged by political authorities and more grassroots initiatives. Examples of invited engagement include events such as consensus conferences, focus groups, citizen juries, public consultations etc. Uninvited engagement is most commonly channelled through civil society organisations and networks of concerned citizens in the form of protests, campaigns and lobbying. STS is not alone in its interest in PP/PE. For example, political philosophy7 discusses many overlapping issues through theories of deliberative democracy. Here the same tension manifests in debate between those who see controversy and framing disputes in the public sphere as the real substance of deliberative democracy (as in the approaches of John Dewey and John Dryzek) and those who (from a more Habermasian point of view) believe deliberation should be institutionally organised and oriented towards achieving consensus (see Hamlett, 2003 and Rowe and Frewer, 2000; Zavestoski et al., 2006). Some STS authors have pointed to a need to reflect more on the models of democracy implicit in PP/PE exercises (Irwin, 2001; Hamlett, 2003; Chilvers, 2008) and there is certainly much for the STS community to gain from deeper interaction with political philosophy. In return, STS has the potential to enrich that field with recent experiences from practice. Focusing on the self-organising nature of parts of the public, Michael Callon and Vololona Rabeharisoa (2008; Rabeharisoa and Callon, 2004) have discussed the increasing emergence of “concerned groups.” For these authors, citizens may spontaneously organise themselves if there is a techno-scientific issue that has become a “matter of concern” (Latour, 2004). In other words, the nature of the issue may favour the emergence of particular publics (see also Marres, 2007). Particularly, Callon and Rabeharisoa (2008) have analysed the emergence of a citizen group that organised itself around the health problem of muscular dystrophy, making alliances with scientists rather than challenging the current “regime of innovation” (Callon and Rabeharisoa, 2008: 257). In contrast to analysis of self-organising citizen groups, the question of how the public is constructed through “invited” PP/PE exercises opens new lines of research (see Irwin, 2001; Goven, 2003; Lezaun and Soneryd, 2007; Stilgoe, 2007; Table 1: 3, 9, 14 and 18). Irwin’s work on “scientific citizenship” is central here (Irwin, 1995, 2001, 2006; Irwin and Michael, 2003). As Irwin and others have argued, invited forms of PP/PE not only predetermine who is a “relevant” participant, but also carry implicit assumptions about how citizens

834   Public Understanding of Science 20(6)

should participate. For example, exercises are often designed as “civilised” debates targeted to achieve consensus. Organisers inevitably impose frames and meanings on to participants (Horlick-Jones et al., 2007), which closes down possible alternative framings and opportunities to question fundamental issues (such as the role of science and technology in society). This has led some to argue for inclusion of the public in the design and evaluation of PP/PE exercises (Chilvers, 2008; Felt, 2008; Rowe et al., 2008). However, this assumes that citizens are in principle interested and eager to get critically engaged in scientific issues, which is not always the case. This can be seen in the problem of “stakeholder fatigue” (e.g. see Pidgeon et al., 2005). It remains to be researched why some techno-scientific issues become “matters of concern” for self-organising citizens while others do not. Wynne (2007b) points out that the main characteristic of “uninvited” engagement is that it can adopt an alternative framing. What distinguishes it from invited engagement is not that it is not organised or does not involve a particular framing, but the possibility to question and challenge the normative commitments and often implicit politics of an official framing of an issue. For example, concerns about the role of technology in society or the dominant socioeconomic structure of modernity may not be opened up through PP/PE exercises that are arranged or funded by institutional authorities. Social movements and other forms of uninvited engagement, can, however, question technological progress as such and in a way that invited initiatives usually do not allow. They can, however, also be promoters of technological progress in a particular area, as the work of Callon and Rabeharisoa (2008) shows. Social movements usually have a defined agenda for their engagement, and therefore might be seen to be operating from an instrumental rationale. However, uninvited PP/PE may also be seen as an expression of a normative ideal of democracy, particularly in the sense that it is based on a more direct form of democracy (i.e. self-organising citizens). It may be argued that the expansion of invited PP/PE directs potential engagement away from uninvited forms. However, limited uninvited engagement on an issue may also be due to lack of direct experience with hazards or a lack of awareness of an emerging technology, which is especially relevant when PP/PE is taken “upstream.” Upstream, midstream or downstream: When is the right time for PP/PE? There is considerable consensus among STS scholars on the importance of including citizens at an early stage of technological development (e.g. see Nowotny et al., 2001; Hamlett, 2003; Chilvers, 2008; Rowe et al., 2005; Wilsdon, 2005; 4S/EASST, 2008). This frequently appears as the argument in favour of “upstream” PP/PE. “Upstream” PP/PE is seen as an opportunity for social values to be disclosed, debated and consciously incorporated into technological development before particular trajectories and attitudes become set. Early PP/PE is therefore thought to enable a more reflexive and socially robust techno-scientific development (Zavestoski et al., 2002; Rowe et al., 2005). Despite a general theoretical agreement in the STS community in favour of upstream PP/PE, tension remains between diverging answers to the question of how far “upstream” it makes sense to go. The question is related to whether it is possible to make a clear distinction between stages of basic research and applied technological development. Some have suggested a type of “midstream” engagement in laboratories and research activities (e.g. see Fisher et al., 2006), while others have suggested PP/PE move all the way up to research funding decisions. The question of what exactly “upstream” means in practice remains open to contestation. Additionally, tensions arise from the fact that the concept of upstream PP/PE is based on a linear, unidirectional and oversimplified image of science–society relations (Wynne, 2006;

Delgado et al.: Public engagement coming of age   835

Table 1: 19). The linear stream metaphor implies that technological choices are irreversible and that it is relatively easy to intervene in and shape socio-technical trajectories. This image often informs upstream PP/PE practices (Rogers-Hayden and Pidgeon, 2007; Barben et al., 2008) and yet, it contradicts a widely accepted idea within the STS community that science– society relations are co-producing, changeable and context dependent (Nowotny et al., 2001; Rip, 2003; Jasanoff, 2004; Marres, 2007). Interestingly, the commitment to upstream PP/PE also pulls against other theoretical ideals in practice. For example, most STS scholars are critical of PP/PE exercises being overly framed by institutional actors with instrumental aims. Satisfying this theoretical ideal in practice is, however, in tension with the theoretical ideal of moving upstream. Upstream PP/PE is likely to take place before an issue has become a public “matter of concern” (Latour, 2004). Not only does uninvited engagement then become less likely, institutions also become more able to predefine the topics of dialogue and potentially manipulate this to achieve instrumental ends, such as enhanced legitimacy for technological advance (Wynne, 2006). There is therefore an emerging concern about whether current upstream PP/PE exercises are serving the theoretical ideal of guiding the direction of techno-scientific development, or rather focused on preventing controversies by familiarising the public with technologies before they become commercialised (Rogers-Hayden and Pidgeon, 2007). Some authors have suggested that in order to include citizens in decision-making, they must have some specific knowledge of the technology in question (Jasanoff, 2003a; Evans and Plows, 2007). This ideal is also clearly challenged by the practice of moving upstream. On one hand, if specific knowledge is required, invited upstream exercises have to provide this information, which implies framing through the selection of materials and/or expert participants. On the other hand, it can be argued that it is citizens’ general knowledge about techno-scientific institutional relations (Wynne, 1996), and their views about the good life (Miah, 2005) that are important for upstream PP/PE. This creates yet another level of tension around how the theoretical ideal of upstream engagement should be carried out in practice. Universal or context specific: Where should PP/PE be grounded? The idea that PP/PE approaches should be context sensitive is well established within the STS community (Barns et al., 2000; Rowe and Frewer, 2005; Einsiedel, 2007; Carolan, 2008; Chilvers, 2008; Felt, 2008; Heath and vom Lehn, 2008; Lengwiler, 2008; Scott and Du Plessis, 2008; Table 1: 10 and 23). Indeed, the claim for contextualisation – together with the critique of the universal character of science – is a foundational element of the STS tradition (Shapin and Schaffer, 1985; Latour, 1993). In accordance with this line of thought, techno-scientific objects appear as the product of situated practices (Latour, 1987) and context embeddedness appears as a main condition of reflexive scientific practice (Nowotny et al., 2001; Jasanoff, 2003a). Based on this, it is understandable that STS scholars are today reflecting upon the conditions for and implications of PP/PE as well as adjusting PP/PE ideas, approaches and models to suit particular contexts.8 For instance, it has been argued that particular political cultures should be taken into account when analysing both invited and uninvited forms of PP/PE (Jasanoff, 2005; Seifert, 2006; Felt, 2008) and that there is a need to adjust PP/PE to the concrete challenges that technological development introduces in particular contexts (Hamlett, 2003). Despite this insistence on the importance of context sensitivity, however, STS authors have demonstrated that some PP/PE models, particularly consensus conferences and citizens’ juries, can “travel well” (Einsiedel et al., 2001: 83). Participatory models are therefore increasingly travelling across cultures, justified on the basis of a general (Western but globalised)

836   Public Understanding of Science 20(6)

tendency to portray PP/PE as a universal element of good governance. The will to be coherent with a theoretical tradition that emphasises reflexivity and context embeddedness therefore comes into tension with a contemporary need in practice for transferrable models that can allow for comparisons and a standardisation in quality control measures. A number of unresolved issues relate to this, for instance: How can different levels of inclusive scientific governance (from the global to the local) be integrated (Hamlett, 2003)? How might general lessons be drawn from comparisons across context specific exercises? And how should one assess the success of PP/PE exercises, i.e. using contextual or general criteria (see Rowe and Frewer, 2000, 2004, 2005)? 4. Encounters with nanotechnology in the age of engagement: tension entanglement One of the main values of mapping these five topics of tension in STS discourse on PP/PE is that it enables us to see more clearly (and better reflect upon) not only the important debates and disagreements within each, but also how choices one makes in relation to one topic, can influence the choices available in another. In this section we will show how this works in the case of nanotechnology. Still an early phase of development, nanotechnology is presented as a “unique opportunity” to put the theoretical ideal of “upstream” PP/PE into practice (Doubleday, 2007; Gavelin et al., 2007; Rogers-Hayden and Pidgeon, 2007; Rogers-Hayden et al., 2007). During the last five years, a number of PP/PE exercises have therefore been organised internationally, e.g. through consensus conferences, citizen juries, focus groups, public consultations etc. Table 2 lists a range of these exercises. STS scholars are increasingly taking an active role in the organisation of PP/PE exercises (e.g. see Doubleday, 2007; Gavelin et al., 2007). Interestingly, however, scepticism is also emerging about upstream PP/PE practices (Wynne, 2006; Pidgeon and Rogers-Hayden, 2007; Table 1: 7). We suggest that this scepticism echoes a failure to recognise and/or reconcile one or more of the tensions we have highlighted. Our argument is not only that the theoretical disagreements in each topic of tension are in play in the case of nanotechnology, but also that the particular choice to prioritise “upstream” PP/PE in practice, has pulled towards particular choices in relation to other tensions and that these may ultimately be uncomfortable or unsatisfactory according to other theoretical ideals. The linkages we point to in this section are not meant to be comprehensive, but serve to indicate and illustrate how theoretical demands and expectations for PP/PE are often in competition with each other and the way in which this can force undesirable compromises and choices in practice. In the first instance, the choice for upstream PP/PE favours the use of invited forms (see Table 2). It is natural that during early stages of a technology’s development, public awareness, concern or interest is too low to generate large groups of self-organising citizens and indeed, for nanotechnology, active involvement of social movements has been limited (with the significant exception of Friends of the Earth and the ETC group). The largely indeterminate character and ambiguous framing of nanotechnology also work against it becoming a “matter of concern” which could favour uninvited engagement (Table 1: 7 and 23; Pidgeon and Rogers-Hayden, 2007). On one hand, nanotechnology is presented as having potential to manifest in a huge range of different applications (from improved solar cells to toxic particles), which seems to signal openness and a unique opportunity for influence over the direction of development. However, discussions also tend to be future-oriented, focusing on nanotechnology in general terms and on hypothetical products rather than concrete applications (e.g. Table 2: 8, 9, 11, 13, 18, 22, 23, 24, 28,

Delgado et al.: Public engagement coming of age   837 Table 2. PP/PE exercises on nanotechnology Example of arranged PP/PE exercises on nanotechnology

Region

Topic of focus

1. Nanologue EU Food, energy, medical diagnostics 2. DEEPEN EU Ethics, governance 3. N  anoBio-RAISE EU Nanobiotechnology 4. N  ano Dialogue EU Nanotechnology in general 5. S  afety for Success Dialogue EU Regulation, risk, Workshop communication 6. EuroNanoForums EU Nanotechnology in general 7. NanoTechYoung EU Nanotechnology in general 8. D  ECIDE Deliberative EU Public engagement methods Citizens’debates 9. C  ode of conduct for EU Research and funding responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research 10. Nanotrust AU Nanotechnology in general 11. Risiko:dialog AU Regulation, health, environment. 12. Nano Nu B Nanotechnology in general 13. Nanotechnologies for B Future applications tomorrow’s society 14. Nano-public CH Innovation, visions, governance 15. PubliFocus CH Regulation, health, environment ` 16. Nanocare DE Risk, human health 17. Consumer conference on DE Food, textiles, cosmetics Nanotechnology in Foods, Cosmetics and Textiles 18. Dialogforum Nano DE Nanotechnology in general 19. Nano im Dialog DE Nanomaterials in the workplace 20. Jugendforum Nanomedizin DE Healthcare and medicine 21. Citizens’ jury DK Nanotechnology in general 22. Conference de citoyens sur FR Nanotechnology in general les Nanotechnogies 23. Nanomode FR Nanotechnology in general 24. VivAgora: Nanomonde FR Governance, risk 25. VivAgora: Nanoviv FR Governance, risk 26. Entreprises pour l’ FR Health and environment Environnement 27. Nano in Focus NL Research agenda, health 28. The Dialogue on Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Project ES Nanotechnology in general

Approach to engagement Stakeholder workshops Discussion groups Focus groups, workshops, card game Scenarios exhibition, debates, surveys, conference Stakeholder conference Stakeholder conference Workshops with students Kit to facilitate debates Public consultation, stakeholder negotiations Stakeholder workshops Panel discussion, stakeholder workshops Public festival with cultural and scientific activities Scenario workshops, delphi Public conferences and discussion groups Moderated discussions with selected participants Interviews with stakeholders, citizendialogue groups Public discussion, expert hearing, consumer vote Stakeholder dialogue Stakeholder dialogue Working groups, expert hearing Citizens’ jury Citizens’ jury A deliberative public debate Public debate Public debate Citizens’ pane Workshops Working group, seminar

838   Public Understanding of Science 20(6) Table 2. (Continued) Example of arranged PP/PE exercises on nanotechnology

Region

Topic of focus

29. Nanotechnology Engagement UK Public engagement processes Group NEG 30. NANO-Jury UK Nanotechnology in general 31. Small Talk UK Science communication 32. Nanodialogues Experiment one UK Nanoparticles, environment 33. Nanodialogues Experiment two UK Decision-making on research 34. Nanodialogues Experiment three ZIM Access to clean water 35. Nanodialogues Experiment four UK Consumer goods 36. Nanotechnology, Risk and UK Healthcare, computing and Sustainability energy 37. Citizen Science @ Bristol UK Nanotechnology in general 38. DEMOCS UK Nanotechnology in general 39. 10th Meeting of the UK Regulation, knowledge Nanotechnologies Stakeholder transfer Forum 40. Public Consultation on UK Medicine and healthcare Nanotechnology for Healthcare 41. Bendigo Workshop on AUS Nanotechnology in general Nanotechnologies 42. Melbourne Citizens’ Panel on AUS Regulation, ethics, Nanotechnologies environment 43. New Zealand Focus Groups NZ Existing and future on Nanotechnologies applications 44. NISE (Nanoscale Informal USA Regulation, society, Science Education) Network environment 45. Global Dialogue on Nanotechnology and the Poor USA Implications for the poor (GDNP) 46. Informed Public Perceptions USA Nanotechnology in general of Nanotechnologies and Trust in Government 47. Public Nano-Café series USA Nanotechnology in general 48. South Carolina Citizens’ USA Nanotechnology in general School of Nanotechnology (SCCSN) 49. Madison Area Consensus USA Nanotechnology in general Conference on Nanotechnology 50. National Citizens’ Technology USA Human performance Forum enhancement

Approach to engagement Coordinating crosslearning from engagement efforts Citizens’ jury Public debates, school visits Deliberative workshops Deliberative workshops Deliberative workshop Focus groups Focus groups, interactive workshop Students engaged in debates, games, voting on funding Card game to stimulate conversations Stakeholder forum Deliberative workshops Workshop Citizens’ panel, expert witnesses, group discussions. Focus groups Group discussions Stakeholder dialogue, online consultation Group discussions Presentations and discussion in public cafés Course for citizens, including interactive discussion Consensus conference Consensus conference with Internet discussion

Note: This table is a modification of an inventory of deliberative processes on nanotechnology from the EC-funded project Nanoplat. The inventory was last updated in October 2008, which corresponds to the literature review for this paper. It is meant to indicate a range of the engagement exercises conducted internationally on nanotechnology and should not be taken as a comprehensive list of all PP/PE activities conducted, particularly as language barriers made information on activities in some regions difficult to access. AU, Austria; AUS, Australia; B, Belgium; CH, Switzerland; DE, Germany; DK, Denmark; ES, Spain; EU, European Union; FR, France; NL, Netherlands; NZ, New Zealand; ZIM, Zimbabwe.

Delgado et al.: Public engagement coming of age   839

37, 38). In order to stimulate upstream PP/PE for nanotechnology, STS scholars have often employed methodologies based upon scenarios, visions and science fiction (Barben et al., 2008; Rip and te Kulve, 2008; Table 2: 1, 3). This implication of the shift upstream arguably discourages uninvited forms of PP/PE because it fails to convey the direct relevance of the issue for the public. In the busy daily lives of citizens, self-organised action around future, hypothetical concerns certainly seems unlikely. Despite the diversity in potential future applications, however, nanotechnology as a general field is often presented as something imminent, for which we must simply prepare. Here, matters of public concern become narrowly framed around questions of risk and regulation (e.g. see Table 2: 5, 12, 15, 16, 24, 25, 26, 41, 42, 44). This approach creates the feeling of a technical issue where citizens need to be informed before they can participate. The combination of a focus on hypothetical future-oriented applications and the technical question of their concrete potential risks, which appears with the preference for upstream PP/PE on nanotechnology, arguably works against uninvited forms of PP/PE. If choosing upstream PP/PE favours invited forms in practice, it can be argued that this also opens a particular space for instrumental rationales. For example, it has been argued that many of the invited upstream PP/PE exercises for nanotechnology have been driven by the instrumental aims to recover public trust in science, avoid a new genetic modification controversy, generate consensus and/or achieve acceptance (Macnaghten et al., 2005; Doubleday, 2007; Barben et al., 2008; Powell and Colin, 2008). As stated above, the advance of nanotechnology in general is often taken as a given and participants are asked to deliberate over narrow issues such as potential risks and/or governance approaches, rather than, for example over alternative development pathways (Pidgeon and Rogers-Hayden, 2007). While, in theory, upstream PP/PE could have opened up for deliberation about visions of the good life, the most important social/political/environmental problems and/or the role of technology in people’s lives (e.g. see Parr, 2005), this is arguably far less likely to occur within invited exercises conducted with an instrumental aim to legitimise the development of nanotechnology. If there is an instrumental aim to avoid public controversy and generate acceptance for nanotechnology, this also influences the choice of who to include. For example, it may be more useful to involve a “neutral” public, rather than particular interest groups or stakeholders. Concerned groups may be seen as less prepared to stay within the frames chosen for discussion. Consulting lay citizens will also arguably be the most powerful choice for achieving social legitimacy. Independent of the rationale, though, it may also be difficult to locate relevant stakeholder groups when dealing with issues upstream. During an early stage of development, it may be unclear who stakeholders in the issue are and (environmental and consumer) groups may feel as though they have too little knowledge to fruitfully engage in decision-making processes. This will also lead to a situation that favours the inclusion of individual citizens rather than particular stakeholder groups. An apparent preference for processes involving lay citizens is demonstrated in Table 2. It can be argued that the choice to move PP/PE upstream has led to some creative experimentation with invited forms of engagement. This includes the use of cultural festivals (Table 2: 12), card games (Table 2: 38), citizen juries (Table 2: 21, 22 and 30), debates in schools (Table 2: 7 and 37), presentations in cafés (Table 2: 47) and citizen schools (Table 2: 48). While some standardised forms like consensus conferences have been used (Table 2: 49), they have also been adapted to work in new geographical contexts (Table 2: 50). The proliferation of experimentation with forms seems to imply a focus on contextualisation.

840   Public Understanding of Science 20(6)

However, it does not necessarily mean that there is contextuality in terms of topic. For example, one can question to what extent people participating in the PP/PE exercise on nanotechnology in Zimbabwe (Table 2: 34) felt that the exercise suited their particular culture and context. Since moving upstream means that there is a lack of grassroots groups able to drive locally grounded initiatives, the commitment to upstream engagement for nanotechnology favours a contextual experimentation with invited forms, but it does not favour a contextualised grounding of topics for discussion. Moving upstream therefore entangles a preference for generalised topics for discussion while creating an avenue for experimentation with invited forms. What one sees in the case of nanotechnology then, is that the choice to favour upstream engagement (a choice made in relation to the question of “when”) has, in practice, implications for the choices made in relation to the organisation of PP/PE (i.e. the question of how), the rationale (why), the participants (who) and the grounding (where). Entanglements across the topics of tension can then lead to a situation where the maximisation of one theoretical ideal forces an uncomfortable compromise in relation to another, or indeed several others. We see this as key in the emerging dissatisfaction from STS scholars with their encounters with upstream PP/PE and nanotechnology. 5. Conclusion In this paper we provided a map of tensions in STS discourse on PP/PE. These tensions become particularly prominent when moving across the gap between theory and practice. For us, a key value of this conceptual map is the way in which it helps us see how the different demands and expectations that exist in parallel in PP/PE theory, force choices and compromises in the transition into practice. In performing our mapping exercise, we have used a double strategy: first making explicit the general topics of tension that exist in STS discourse on PP/PE; and second, focusing on how the tensions are entangled in the case of nanotechnology. Exploring how the five topics of tension interact and where they create competing demands on STS scholars in moving PP/PE from theory into practice is, we believe, a valuable step in trying to negotiate a way forward in the age of engagement. Disentangling different tensions provides an opportunity to make an overall consideration of the various aspects of PP/PE and the fitness for purpose for any particular case and situation in question. This should be included in the reflexive mode that STS has consistently promoted (Nowotny, 2007; Webster, 2007; Wynne, 2007a). In the age of engagement, STS scholars are being pushed into an agonistic situation: divided between the aim of maintaining a critical and reflexive approach based on theoretical ideals and a social commitment to engaging in action, which inevitably involves making tough choices and compromises across a range of ideals. Nevertheless, we would argue that STS scholars can take advantage of this situation. It is important that one seeks to remain alert, aware and transparent about the conflicts or tensions that are created when theoretical ideals are implemented in the complex realities of practice. These, however, have the ability to be creative tensions, inspiring innovation, experimentation, and future research into alternative options and solutions. It is our hope that the map of the gap between theory and practice and the different fields of tension existing within it provided in this paper can be useful not only for anticipating difficult terrain (by providing a clearer picture of contested context within which one will have to make choices) but also for helping to find and create alternative routes through the landscape.

Delgado et al.: Public engagement coming of age   841

Acknowledgements We are grateful to our mentors and all the people participating in the seminars, workshops, projects and conferences mentioned in the text. Thank you to the anonymous reviewers for their very constructive comments. Funding We would like to thank both the Norwegian Research Council and the European Commission sponsored FP7 project Nanoplat: Development of a Platform for Deliberative Processes on Nanotechnology in the European Consumer Market for providing the funding that supported the development of this paper. Notes 1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8

Perhaps more accurately referred to as “nanosciences and nanotechnologies,” however, for the sake of simplicity we will use the singular term “nanotechnology” which is becoming prominent. Rowe and Frewer (2005) have called PP and PE “synonymous of uncertain equivalence” (p. 252). They have differentiated between “public communication,” “public consultation” and “public participation” as three types of public engagement. We have, however, chosen to develop a different distinction in this paper. We are aware that by using this criterion we have failed to include other journals whose specific thematic is science policy. However, for the purpose of this paper, a concrete criterion of “influence” (for the entire STS community) was needed. When the journals did not provide keywords, we searched for “participation” and “engagement” as keywords within the abstracts. Our identification of these five top topics of tension was also checked for its accuracy and comprehensiveness during our attendance at two key events focused on PP/PE and involving STS scholars. These were the first seminar in the ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) series on “Critical perspectives on public engagement in science and environmental risk” (held in Birmingham in April 2009) and the annual meeting of the Science and Democracy Network (held in Harvard in June 2009). At these cross-continental events we noted that the presentations and discussions engaged our topics of tension but did not raise any substantially new themes outside those we had characterised. Of course this depends on the version of social constructivism in use. For a foundational debate in STS on this topic see the “Epistemological Chicken” debate in Pickering (1992). Other fields such as urban and environmental planning also have relevant knowledge around PP/PE that the STS community could benefit from, as do transdisciplinary approaches to research more generally (see Wickson et al., 2006), however, in this paper we restrict our focus to the STS discourse. See special issue of Science, Technology and Human Values (2008, vol. 33, no. 2).

References Allspaw, K.M. (2004) “Engaging the Public in the Regulation of Xenotransplantation: Would the Canadian Model of Public Consultation Be Effective in the US?,” Public Understanding of Science 13: 417–28. Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C. and Guston, D. (2008) “Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration,” in E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M.E. Lynch and J. Wajcman (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edn, pp. 979–1000. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Barns, I., Schibeci, R., Davison, A. and Shaw, R. (2000) “‘What Do You Think about Genetic Medicine?’ Facilitating Sociable Public Discourse on Developments in the New Genetics,” Science, Technology and Human Values 25(3): 283–308. Bijker, W. (2003) “The Need for Public Intellectuals: A Space for STS,” Science, Technology and Human Values 28(4): 443–50. Brown, P., McCormick, S., Mayer, B., Zavestoski, S., Morello-Frosch, R., Gasior Altman, L. and Senier, L. (2006) “A ‘Lab of Our Own’: Environmental Causation of Breast Cancer and Challenges to the Dominant Epidemiological Paradigm,” Science, Technology and Human Values 31(5): 499–536. Burgess, J., Stirling, A., Clark, J., Davies, G., Eames, M., Staley, K. and Williamson, S. (2007) “Deliberative Mapping: A Novel Analytic-Deliberative Methodology to Support Contested Science Policy,” Public Understanding of Science 16(3): 299–322.

842   Public Understanding of Science 20(6) Callon, M. and Rabeharisoa, V. (2008) “The Growing Engagement of Emergent Concerned Groups in Political and Economic Life: Lessons from the French Association of Neuromuscular Disease Patients,” Science, Technology and Human Values 33(2): 230–61. Carolan, M.S. (2008) “Democratizing Knowledge: Sustainable and Conventional Agricultural Field Days as Divergent Democratic Forms,” Science, Technology and Human Values 33(4): 508–28. Chilvers, J. (2008) “Deliberating Competence: Theoretical and Practitioner Perspectives on Effective Participatory Appraisal Practice,” Science, Technology and Human Values 33(2): 155–85. Collins, H.M. and Evans, R. (2002) “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience,” Social Studies of Science 32(2): 235–96. Collins, H.M. and Evans, R. (2007) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Doubleday, R. (2007) “Risk, Public Engagement and Reflexivity: Alternative Framings of the Public Dimensions of Nanotechnology,” Health, Risk and Society 9(2): 211–27. Drake, F. (2006) “Mobile Phone Masts: Protesting the Scientific Evidence,” Public Understanding of Science 15: 387–410. Einsiedel, E. (2007) “Editorial: Of Publics and Science,” Public Understanding of Science 16: 5–6. Einsiedel, E., Jelsøe, E. and Breck, T. (2001) “Publics and the Technology Table: The Consensus Conference in Denmark, Canada and Australia,” Public Understanding of Science 10: 83–98. Epstein, S. (1995) “The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials,” Science, Technology and Human Values 20(4): 408–37. Evans, R. and Plows, A. (2007) “Listening Without Prejudice? Re-discovering the Value of the Disinterested Citizen,” Social Studies of Science 37(6): 827–53. Felt, U. (2008) “Visions and Versions of Governing Biomedicine: Narratives of Power Structures, Decision-making and Public Participation in the Field of Biomedical Technology in the Austrian Context,” Social Studies of Science 38(2): 233–57. Fiorino, D.J. (1990) “Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms,” Science, Technology and Human Values 15(2): 226–43. Fisher, E., Mahajan, R.L. and Mitcham, C. (2006) “Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance from Within,” Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 26(6): 485–96. Gavelin, K., Wilson, R. and Doubleday, R. (2007) “Democratic Technologies? The Final Report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG).” London: Involve. Goven, J. (2003) “Deploying the Consensus Conference in New Zealand: Democracy and De-problematization,” Public Understanding of Science 12: 423–40. Goven, J. (2006) “Processes of Inclusion, Cultures of Calculation, Structures of Power: Scientific Citizenship and the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification,” Science, Technology and Human Values 31(5): 565–98. Guston, D.H. and Sarewitz, D. (eds) (2006) Shaping Science and Technology Policy: The Next Generation of Research (Science and Technology in Society). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Hamlett, P.W. (2003) “Technology Theory and Deliberative Democracy,” Science, Technology and Human Values 28(1): 112–40. Heath, C. and vom Lehn, D. (2008) “Configuring ‘Interactivity’: Enhancing Engagement in Science Centres and Museums,” Social Studies of Science 38(1): 63–91. Horlick-Jones, T., Rowe, G. and Walls, J. (2007) “Citizen Engagement Processes as Information Systems: The Role of Knowledge and the Concept of Translation Quality,” Public Understanding of Science 16(3): 259–78. Iles, A. (2007) “Identifying Health Risk in Consumer Products: Non-governmental Organizations and Civic Epistemologies,” Public Understanding of Science 16(4): 371–91. Irwin, A. (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London and New York: Routledge. Irwin, A. (2001) “Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences,” Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 1–18. 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 Michael, M. (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Jasanoff, S. (1995) Science at the Bar: Law, Science and Technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jasanoff, S. (2003a) “Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science,” Minerva 41: 223–44. Jasanoff, S. (2003b) “Breaking the Waves in Science Studies: Comment on H.M. Collins and Robert Evans, ‘The Third Wave of Science Studies,’” Social Studies of Science 33(3): 389–400. Jasanoff, S. (ed.) (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order. London and New York: Routledge.

Delgado et al.: Public engagement coming of age   843 Jasanoff, S. (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981) The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Latour, B. (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (2004) “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern,” Critical Inquiry 30(2): 225–48. Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. ([1979] 1986) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lengwiler, M. (2008) “Participatory Approaches in Science and Technology: Historical Origins and Current Practices in Critical Perspective,” Science, Technology and Human Values 33(2): 186–200. Lewenstein, B.V. (2003) “Editorial,” Public Understanding of Science 12: 357–8. Lezaun, J. and Soneryd, L. (2007) “Consulting Citizens: Technologies of Elicitation and the Mobility of Publics,” Public Understanding of Science 16: 279–97. McCormick, S. (2007) “Democratizing Science Movements: A New Framework for Mobilization and Contestation,” Social Studies of Science 37(4): 609–23. Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M. and Wynne, B. (2005) “Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?,” Science Communication 27(2): 268–91. Marres, N. (2007) “The Issue Deserves More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy,” Social Studies of Science 37(5): 759–80. Miah, A. (2005) “Genetics, Cyberspace and Bioethics: Why not a Public Engagement with Ethics?,” Public Understanding of Science 14: 409–21. Michael, M. (2002) “Comprehension, Apprehension, Prehension: Heterogeneity and the Public Understanding of Science,” Science, Technology and Human Values 27(3): 357–78. Miller, C. and Edwards, P. (eds) (2001) Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Nowotny, H. (2007) “How Many Policy Rooms Are There? Evidence-based and Other Kinds of Science Policies,” Science, Technology and Human Values 32(4): 479–90. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001) Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. London: Polity Press. Parr, D. (2005) “Will Nanotechnology Make the World a Better Place?,” Trends in Biotechnology 23(8): 395–8. Pickering, A. (ed.) (1992) Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pickering, A. (1995) The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pidgeon, N. and Rogers-Hayden, T. (2007) “Opening Up Nanotechnology Dialogue with the Publics: Risk Communication or ‘Upstream Engagement’?,” Health, Risk and Society 9(2): 191–210. Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., Rowe, G., Horlick Jones, T. and Walls, J. (2005) “Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate,” Risk Analysis 25(2): 467–79. Powell, M. and Colin, M. (2008) “Meaningful Citizen Engagement in Science and Technology: What Would it Really Take?,” Science Communication 30(1): 126–36. Powell, M. and Kleinman, D. (2008) “Building Citizen Capacities for Participation in Nanotechnology Decision-making: The Democratic Virtues of the Consensus Conference Model,” Public Understanding of Science 17: 329–48. Rabeharisoa, V. and Callon, M. (2004) “Patients and Scientists in French Muscular Dystrophy Research,” in S. Jasanoff (ed.) States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order, pp. 142–61. London and New York: Routledge. Rip, A. (2003) “Constructing Expertise in a Third Wave of Science Studies?,” Social Studies of Science 33(3): 419–34. Rip, A. and te Kulve, H. (2008) “Constructive Technology Assessment and Socio-technical Scenarios,” in E. Fisher, C. Selin and J.M. Wetmore (eds) The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, vol. 1, pp. 49–70. Dordrecht: Springer. Rip, A., Misa, T. and Schot, J. (eds) (1995) Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Pinter Publishers. Rogers-Hayden, T. and Pidgeon, N. (2007) “Moving Engagement ‘Upstream’? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Academy of Engineering’s Inquiry,” Public Understanding of Science 16: 345–64. Rogers-Hayden, T., Mohr, A. and Pidgeon, N. (2007) “Introduction: Engaging with Nanotechnology – Engaging Differently?,” NanoEthics 1: 123–30.

844   Public Understanding of Science 20(6) Roth, A.L., Dunsby, J. and Bero, L.A. (2003) “Framing Processes in Public Commentary on US Federal Tobacco Control Regulation,” Social Studies of Science 33(1): 7–44. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2000) “Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation,” Science, Technology and Human Values 23(1): 3–29. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2004) “Evaluating Public Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda,” Science, Technology and Human Values 30(4): 512–56. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2005) “A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms,” Science, Technology and Human Values 30(2): 251–90. Rowe, G., Marsh, R. and Frewer, L.J. (2004) “Evaluation of a Deliberative Conference,” Science, Technology and Human Values 29(1): 88–121. Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J. and Pidgeon, N. (2005) “Difficulties in Evaluating Public Engagement Initiatives: Reflections on an Evaluation of the UK GM Nation Public Debate about Transgenic Crops,” Public Understanding of Science 14: 331–52. Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. (2008) “Analysis of a Normative Framework for Evaluating Public Engagement Exercises: Reliability, Validity and Limitations,” Public Understanding of Science 17: 419–41. Scott, A. and Du Plessis, R. (2008) “Eliciting Situated Knowledges about New Technologies,” Public Understanding of Science 17: 105–19. Scott-Murdock, B., Wiessner, C. and Sexton, K. (2005) “Stakeholder Participation in Voluntary Environmental Agreements: Analysis of 10 Project XL Case Studies,” Science, Technology and Human Values 30(2): 223–50. Seifert, F. (2006) “Local Steps in an International Career: A Danish-style Consensus Conference in Austria,” Public Understanding of Science 15: 73–88. Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S. (1985) Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Society for Social Studies of Science/European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (4S/EASST) (2008) Conference “Acting with Science, Technology and Medicine,” 20–3 August, Rotterdam. Conference Book of Abstracts. Soneryd, L. (2007) “Deliberations on the Unknown, the Unsensed, and the Unsayable? Public Protest and the Development of Third-Generation Mobile Phones in Sweden,” Science, Technology and Human Values 32(3): 287–314. Stenekes, N., Colebatch, H.K., Waite, D.T. and Ashbolt, N.J. (2006) “Risk and Governance in Water Recycling: Public Acceptance Revisited,” Science, Technology and Human Values 31(2): 107–34. Stilgoe, J. (2007) “The (Co-)Production of Public Uncertainty: UK Scientific Advice on Mobile Phone Health Risks,” Public Understanding of Science 16(1): 45–61. Stirling, A. (2005) “Opening up or Closing Down? Analysis, Participation and Power in the Social Appraisal of Technology,” in M. Leach, I. Scoones and B. Wynne (eds) Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, pp. 118–32. London: Zed Books. Stirling, A. (2008) “‘Opening Up’ and ‘Closing Down’: Power, Participation and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology,” Science, Technology and Human Values 33(2): 262–94. Tutton, R. (2007) “Constructing Participation in Genetic Data Bases: Citizenship, Governance and Ambivalence,” Science, Technology and Human Values 32(2): 172–95. Tytler, R., Duggan, S. and Gott, R. (2001) “Public Participation in an Environmental Dispute: Implications for Science Education,” Public Understanding of Science 10: 343–64. Webster, A. (2007) “Reflections on Reflexive Engagement: Response to Nowotny and Wynne,” Science, Technology and Human Values 32(5): 608–15. Wickson, F., Carew, A.L. and Russell, W. (2006) “Transdisciplinary Research: Characteristics, Quandaries and Quality,” Futures 38(9): 1046–59. Williams, R. (2008) “Compressed Foresight and Narrative Bias: Pitfalls in Assessing High Technology Futures,” in E. Fisher, C. Selin and J.M. Wetmore (eds) The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, vol. 1, pp. 265–289. Dordrecht: Springer. Wilsdon, J. (2005) “Paddling Upstream: New Currents in European Technology Assessment,” in M. Rodemeyer, D. Sarewitz and J. Wilsdon The Future of Technology Assessment, pp. 22–9. Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Wynne, B. (1996) “May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide,” in S. Lash, B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, pp. 44–84. London: SAGE. Wynne, B. (2003) “Seasick on the Third Wave? Subverting the Hegemony of Propositionalism,” Social Studies of Science 33(3): 401–17.

Delgado et al.: Public engagement coming of age   845 Wynne, B. (2006) “Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science: Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?,” Community Genetics 9(3): 211–20. Wynne, B. (2007a) “Dazzled by the Mirage of Influence? STS-SSK in Multivalent Registers of Relevance,” Science, Technology and Human Values 32(4): 491–503. Wynne, B. (2007b) “Public Participation in Science and Technology: Performing and Obscuring a Political-Conceptual Category Mistake,” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 1(1): 99–110. Wynne, B. and Felt, U. (2007) “Taking the European Knowledge Society Seriously: Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate.” Brussels: Directorate-General for Research, European Commission. Zavestoski, S., Brown, P., Meadow, L., McCormick, S. and Mayer, B. (2002) “Science, Policy, Activism, and War: Defining the Health of Gulf War Veterans,” Science, Technology and Human Values 27(2): 171–205. Zavestoski, S., Shulman, S. and Schlosberg, D. (2006) “Democracy and the Environment on the Internet: Electronic Citizen Participation in Regulatory Rulemaking,” Science, Technology and Human Values 31(4): 383–408.

Authors Ana Delgado’s research focuses on the role of social movements in governance regarding environmental issues as well as converging technologies. She is the author of “Activist Trust: The Diffusion of Green Expertise in a Brazilian Landscape,” in Public Understanding of Science (forthcoming). Correspondence: Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities / Senter for Vitenskapsteori, University of Bergen, Postboks 7800, N-5020 Bergen, Norway; e-mail: [email protected] Kamilla Lein Kjølberg is currently working as a PhD student at the University of Bergen in an interdisciplinary project on social interactions with nanotechnology. The topic of her dissertation is responsible technology development. She is the author of “Representations of Nanotechnology in Norwegian Newspapers – Implications for Public Participation,” in NanoEthics (2009) 3(1): 61–72. Fern Wickson has research interests in environmental governance, risk and uncertainty, and the ethics of emerging technologies. She is presently working as a researcher at GenØk Centre for Biosafety in Tromsø Norway. One of her recent publications is “Narratives of Nature and Nanotechnology,” in Nature Nanotechnology (2008) 3: 313–16.