Building on previous studies of participatory learning amongst individuals within discrete participation processes, the authors examine organisationally situated processes of learning related to public participation in science and environmental governance. Qualitative analysis of documents and semistructured interviews is used to explore frames of participation, publics, and the issue of climate change, both transforming and stable. This illuminates trends of learning in the context of the organisational network around the UK Government-funded body Sciencewise and related organisations, from 2000 to 2010. It is argued that formal organisational learning mechanisms foster instrumental learning, precluding reflective and relational learning which could potentially transform organisational assumptions and routines around participation. However, informal social networks have promoted transformative social learning and reflexivity at particular moments during the decade.
ArgyrisCSchönD, 1996Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA)
2.
BanduraA, 1977Social Learning Theory (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ)
3.
BeckU, 1992Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (Sage, London)
4.
BeckUGiddensALashS, 1994Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order (Polity, Cambridge)
5.
BenneworthP, 2009, “The challenges for 21st century science: A review of the evidence base surrounding the value of public engagement by scientists”, working paper prepared for the Science for All Expert Group, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, Universiteit Twente
6.
BoydEOsbahrH, 2010, “Responses to climate change: Exploring organisational learning across internationally networked organisations for development”Environmental Education Research16629–643
7.
BraunKSchultzS, 2010, “‘… a certain amount of engineering involved’: Constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements”Public Understanding of Science19403–419
8.
BurchellK, 2009, “A helping hand or a servant discipline? Interpreting non-academic perspectives on the roles of social science in participatory policy-making”Science, Technology and Innovation Studies549–61
9.
ChilversJ, 2008a, “Deliberating competence—theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice”Science, Technology and Human Values33155–185
10.
ChilversJ, 2008b, “Environmental risk, uncertainty, and participation: Mapping an emergent epistemic community”Environment and Planning A402990–3008
11.
ChilversJ, 2009, “Deliberative and participatory approaches in environmental geography”, in The Companion to Environmental Geography Eds CastreeNDemerittDLivermanDRhoadsB, (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 400–419
12.
ChilversJ, 2010Sustainable Participation? Mapping Out and Reflecting on the Field of Public Dialogue in Science and TechnologySciencewise—Expert Resource Centre, Harwell, Oxon
13.
ChilversJMacnaghtenP, 2011The Future of Science Governance: A Review of Public Concerns, Governance and Institutional ResponseSciencewise—Expert Resource Centre, Harwell, Oxon
14.
ChilversJ, 2012, “Reflexive engagement? Actors, learning, and reflexivity in public dialogue on science and technology”Science Communication Online first, doi: 10.117/1075547012454598
15.
ClarkeA E, 2005Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA)
16.
Climate Change Act2008Public General Acts—Elizabeth II chapter 27 (The Stationery Office, London)
DTI, 2004Science and Innovation and Investment Framework 2004–2014 Department of Trade and Industry (HM Treasury, London)
30.
DTI, 2007Meeting the Energy Challenge: A White Paper on Energy Cm 7124, Department of Trade and Industry (The Stationery Office, London)
31.
FeltUFochlerM, 2010, “Machineries for making publics: Inscribing and de-scribing publics in public engagementMinerva48219–238
32.
FeltUWynneB, 2007Taking the European Knowledge Society Seriously: Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research, European Commission (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Brussels)
33.
GoodinRDryzekJ, 2006, “Deliberative impacts: The macro-political uptake of mini-publics”Politics and Society34219–244
34.
HabermasJ, 1984The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol 1: Reason and the Realization of Society (Beacon Press, Boston, MA)
35.
HendriksC, 2006, “Integrated deliberation: Reconciling civil society's dual role in deliberative democracy”Political Studies54486–508
36.
HM Government, 2008aH M Government Code of Practice on ConsultationDepartment for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, London
37.
HM Government, 2008bThe UK Low Carbon Transition Plan (The Stationery Office, London)
38.
HM Government, 2011Carbon Plan (The Stationery Office, London)
39.
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, 2000Science and Society (The Stationery Office, London)
Localism Act2011Public General Acts—Elizabeth II chapter 20 (The Stationery Office, London)
53.
LorenzoniIHulmeM, 2009, “Believing is seeing: Laypeople's views of future socio-economic and climate change in England and in Italy”Public Understanding of Science18383–400
54.
LovellHBulkeleyHOwensS, 2009, “Converging agendas? Energy and climate change policies in the UK”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy2790–109
55.
MarresN, 2007, “The issues deserve more credit: Pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy”Social Studies of Science37759–780
56.
MezirowJ, 1997, “Transformative learning: Theory to practice”New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education74(Summer) 5–12
57.
MillerC A, 2004, “Climate science and the making of a global political order”, in States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order Ed. JasanoffS, (Routledge, London) pp 46–66
58.
MouffeC, 1999, “Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism?”Social Research66(3) 745–758
59.
OwensS, 2000, “‘Engaging the public’: Information and deliberation in environmental policy”Environment and Planning A321141–1148
60.
OwensSRaynerTBinaO, 2004, “New agendas for appraisal: Reflections on theory, practice, and research”Environment and Planning A361943–1959
61.
PellingMHighCDearingJSmithD, 2008, “Shadow spaces for social learning: A relational understanding of adaptive capacity to climate change within organisations”Environment and Planning A40867–884
62.
Performance and Innovation Unit, 2002The Energy ReviewCabinet Office, London
63.
PettsJ, 2006, “Managing public engagement to optimize learning: Reflections from urban river restoration”Human Ecology Review13172–181
64.
PettsJ, 2007, “Learning about learning: Lessons from public engagement and deliberation on urban river restoration”Geographical Journal173300–311
PrinsGGalianaIGreenCGrundmannRHulmeMKorholaALairdFNordhausTPielkeRJrRaynerSSarewitzDShellenbergerMStehrNTezukaH, 2010The Hartwell Paper: A New Direction for Climate Policy After the Crash of 2009 (London School of Economics, London)
69.
RathouseKDevine-WrightP, 2010Evaluation of the Big Energy ShiftKathryn Rathouse Social Research and Placewise, St. Albans
70.
Science for All Expert Group, 2010Science for All: Report and Action Plan from the Science for All Expert Group Department for Business Innovation and Skills (The Stationery Office, London)
SmithAStirlingA, 2007, “Moving outside or inside? Objectification and reflexivity in the governance of socio-technical systems”Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning8 (3–4) 1–23
74.
StaglS, 2006, “Multicriteria evaluation and public participation: The case of UK energy policy”Land Use Policy23(1) 53–62
75.
StilgoeJ, (Ed.), 2009The Road Ahead: Public Dialogue on Science and TechnologyDepartment of Business, Innovation and Skills, London
76.
StirlingA, 2006, “Precaution, foresight and sustainability: Reflection and reflexivity in the governance of science and technology”, in Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development Eds VoßJ-PBauknechtDKempR, (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 225–272
77.
StirlingA, 2008, “‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’—power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology”Science Technology and Human Values33262–294
78.
Tewdwr-JonesMAllmendingerP, 1998, “Deconstructing communicative rationality: A critique of Habermasian collaborative planning”Environment and Planning A301975–1989
79.
TNS-BMRB, 2011Science, Trust and Public Engagement—Exploring Future Pathways to Good GovernanceDepartment of Business, Innovation and Skills, and Sciencewise—Expert Resource Centre, Harwell, Oxon
80.
WarburtonD, 2008Evaluation of the Research Councils UK public dialogue on UK Energy ResearchShared Practice, Brighton, Sussex
81.
WarburtonD, 2011Evaluation of Sciencewise-ERC: Final ReportSciencewise—Expert Resource Centre, Harwell, Oxon
82.
WeblerTKastenholzHRennO, 1995, “Public participation in impact assessment: A social learning perspective”Environmental Impact Assessment Review15443–563
WilsdonJWillisR, 2004See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream (Demos, London)
85.
WolcottSSenguptaA, 2010Learning for Change in Public, Educational and Other Science Organisations: Embedding Greater Public Engagement report to Science for All Expert Group, Department for Business Innovation and Skills, London
86.
WynneB, 2006, “Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—hitting the notes, but missing the music?”Community Genetics9211–220
87.
WynneB, 2007, “Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake”East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal199–110
