In this paper I set the emergence of ‘coinquiry’ approaches to public engagement in the context of the apparent inability of conventional arrangements to contribute effectively to the transition to environmental sustainability. I explicate characteristics of coinquiry, which is distinguished from ‘upstream engagement’, in so doing developing criteria with which to evaluate its application. Examining documentary sources, I identify and critically review projects funded by the UK Beacons for Public Engagement on the topic of environment and sustainability. The conclusion highlights the factors limiting the capacity of the Beacon initiative—and possibly that of similar national initiatives to be undertaken in the future—to attain stated objectives relating to public engagement with environment and sustainability matters and the practice of coinquiry.
BickerstaffKLorenzoniIJonesMPidgeonN, 2010, “Locating scientific citizenship: The institutional contexts and cultures of public engagement”Science Technology and Human Values35474–500
4.
BullRPettsJEvansJ, 2008, “Social learning from public engagement: Dreaming the impossible”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management51701–716
5.
BurchellKFranklinSHoldenK, 2009, “Public culture as professional science”, final report of the ScoPE project ‘Scientists on public engagement: From communication to deliberation?’, September, BIOS, London School of Economics and Political Science, http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/BIOS/scope/scope.htm
6.
CallonM, 1999, “The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge”Science, Technology and Human Values481–94
ChilversJ, 2008, “Delivering competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives and effective participatory practice”Science, Technology and Human Values33155–185
9.
ConradECassarL FChristieMFazeyI, 2011, “Hearing but not listening? A participatory assessment of public participation in planning”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy29761–782
10.
CUE East, University of East Anglia, Norwich
11.
2007, “Community University Engagement East Business Plan”
12.
2010, “Local projects benefit from $47,000 CUE East funding”, press release, 19 April
2011b, “Local projects benefit from $51,000 CUE East funding”, press release, 3 February
15.
DECC, 2009UK Low Carbon Transition Plan, 2009: National Strategy for Climate and Energy Department of Energy and Climate Change (The Stationery Office, Norwich)
EadyNSinghJTaylor-GeeAWakefordT, 2008, “Community x-change: Connecting citizens and scientists to policy-makers”Participatory Learning and Action5839–43
18.
EamesMEgmoseJ, 2010, “Community foresight for urban and sustainability: Insights from the citizens science for sustainability (SuScit) project”Technological Forecasting and Social Change78769–784
19.
Edinburgh Beltane Beacon, 2012, “Edinburgh Beltane Beacon for public engagement: Final report”, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
20.
GavelinKWilsonRDoubledayR, 2007, “Democratic technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG)”, Involve, London
21.
GibbonsMLimogesCNowotnyHSchwartzmanSScottPTrowM, 1994The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (Sage, London)
22.
GovenJLangerE RBakerVAtariaJLeckieA, 2012, “Community engagement in the management of biosolids: Lessons from four New Zealand studies”Journal of Environmental Management103154–164
23.
HaqJ, 2008, “Community participation: Activists or citizens?”Participatory Learning and Action5891–96
24.
HeronJReasonP, 2006[2001], “The practice of cooperative inquiry: Research ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ people”, in Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice Eds ReasonPBradburyH, (Sage, London) pp 179–188
25.
Horlick-JonesTWallsJRoweGPidgeonNPoortingaWMurdockGO'RiordanT, 2007The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement (Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon)
26.
House of Lords, 2000Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000) Science and Society London
27.
IrwinAMichaelM, 2003Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge (Open University Press, Milton Keynes, Bucks)
NyeMBurgessJ, 2008Promoting Durable Change in Household Waste and Energy Use Behaviour. University of East Anglia, Norwich
38.
OwensSPettsJBulkeleyH, 2006, “Boundary work: Knowledge, policy, and the urban environment”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy24633–643
39.
People, Science and Policy, 2010, “Independent review of Beacons for Public Engagement Evaluation Findings, final report for RCUK, HEFCE and the Wellcome Trust”, PSP/10/020, London
40.
PimbertMWakefordT, 2003, “Prajateerpu, power and knowledge: The politics of participatory action—research in development part 1. Context, process and safeguards”Action Research1184–207
41.
RichardsCBlackstockKCarterC, 2007, “Practical approaches to participation”, Socio-Economic Research Group, Policy Brief No. 1, 2nd edition, Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen
42.
RipAMisaTSchotJ, (Eds), 1995Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment (Pinter, London)
43.
RoweGFrewerL, 2005, “A typology of public engagement mechanisms”Science, Technology and Human Values30251–290
44.
RoweGHorlick-JonesTWallsJPoortingaWPidgeonN, 2008, “Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: Reliability, validity and limitations”Public Understanding of Science17419–441
45.
Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, 2004Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. Royal Society, London
SinghJ, 2008, “The UK nanojury as upstream public engagement”Participatory Learning and Action5827–32
49.
StilgoeJ, 2007, “Nanodialogues: Experiments in public engagement with science”, Demos, London
50.
StirlingALeachMMehtaLScoonesISmithAStaglSThompsonJ, 2007, “Empowering designs: Towards more progressive appraisal of sustainability”, WP3, Brighton, STEPS Centre, Brighton
51.
StreetP, 1997, “Scenario workshops: A participatory approach to sustainable urban living?”Futures29139–158
52.
TsouvalisJWatertonC, 2012, “Building participation upon critique: The Loweswater care project, Cumbria, UK”Environmental Modelling and Software36111–121
53.
UCL, University College London
54.
2007, “UCL: A Beacon for public engagement”, press release, 9 November
UEA, 2011Evaluate, Reflect and Learn. University of East Anglia, Norwich
59.
WakefordTPimbertM, 2004, “Prajateerpu, power and knowledge: The politics of participatory action research in development part 2. Analysis, reflections and implications”Action Research225–46
60.
WicksP GReasonP, 2009, “Initiating action research: Challenges and paradoxes of opening communicative space”Action Research7243–262
61.
WynneB, 2006, “Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: Hitting the notes, but missing the music?”Community Genetics9211–220
62.
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
63.
YetanoARoyoSAcereteB, 2010, “What is driving the increasing presence of citizen participation initiatives?”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy28783–802
