While the rhetoric of public engagement is increasingly commonplace within industry, there has been little research that examines how lay knowledge is conceptualized and whether it is really used within companies. Using the chemicals sector as an example, this paper explores how companies conceive of publics and “public knowledge,” and how this relates to modes of engagement/communication with them. Drawing on qualitative empirical research in four companies, we demonstrate that the public for industry are primarily conceived as “consumers” and “neighbours,” having concerns that should be allayed rather than as groups with knowledge meriting engagement. We conclude by highlighting the dissonance between current advocacy of engagement and the discourses and practices prevalent within industry, and highlight the need for more realistic strategies for industry/public engagement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aarhus Convention (1998) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, United Nations ECE/CEP/43, agreed in Aarhus, Denmark, 23-5 June 1998.
2.
Brown, P. (1991) “The Popular Epidemiology Approach to Toxic Waste Contamination,” in S. R. Couch and J. Kroll-Smith (eds) Communities at Risk: Collective Responses to Technological Hazards, pp. 133-155. New York: Peter Lang .
3.
Brown, P. (1993) “When the Public Knows Better: Popular Epidemiology,”Environment35(8): 17-41 .
4.
Burchell, K. (in press) ”Empiricist Selves and Contingent ‘Others’: the Performative Function of the Discourse of Scientists Working in Conditions of Controversy,”Public Understanding of Science in press.
5.
Burgess, J. and Harrison, C. (1993) “The Circulation of Claims in the Cultural Politics of Environmental Change,” in A. Hansen (ed.) The Mass Media and Environmental Issues, pp. 198-221. Leicester: Leicester University Press .
6.
Carson, R. (1962) Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin .
7.
Collins, H. and Yearley, S. (1992) “Epistemological Chicken,” in A. Pickering (ed.) Science as Practice and Culture, pp. 301-326. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
8.
Copenhagen Charter: A Management Guide to Stakeholder Reporting (1999) Ernst & Young, KPMG, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, House of Mandag Morgen .
9.
Dickens, P. (1996) Reconstructing Nature: Alienation, Emancipation and the Division of Labour. London: Routledge .
10.
EC (2001) Commission White Paper of 27 February 2001 on the Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy. COM (2001) 88.
11.
Erler, S. (2006) “Framework for Chemical Risk Management under REACH,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Surrey.
12.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003) “Innovation in Innovation: the Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations,”Social Science Information42(3): 293-337 .
13.
Fiorino, D. (1989) “Environmental Risk and Democratic Process: a Critical Review,”Columbia Journal of Environmental Law14: 501-547 .
14.
Gibbons, M. (1999) “Science’s New Social Contract with Society,”Nature402(6761): Supp/1, c81-c85 .
15.
Gibbons, M. , Limoges, C. , Nowotny, H. , Schwartzman, S. , Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: SAGE Publications .
16.
Gilbert, G. N. and Mulkay, M. (1984) Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
17.
Gregory, J. (2005) “What are the Benefits of Public Engagement?,” URL: http://www.techforum.org.uk/guidance/pdf/what_are_the_benefits_of_public_engagement_jg.pdf
18.
Hansen, A. (1991) “The Media and the Social Construction of the Environment,”Media, Culture and Society13: 443-458 .
19.
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000) Science and Society. London: HMSO .
20.
Irwin, A. (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge .
21.
Irwin, A. and Michael, M. (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press .
22.
Maranta, A. , Guggenheim, M. , Gisla, P. and Pohl, C. (2003) “The Reality of Experts and the Imagined Lay Person,”Acta Sociologica46(2): 150-165 .
23.
Michael, M. (1996) “Ignoring Science: Discourses of Ignorance in the Public Understanding of Science,” in A. Irwin and B. Wynne (eds) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, pp. 105-125. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
24.
O’Mahony, J. (2004) “The Stakeholder Route to Corporate Social Responsibility,”Risk and Regulation7(Summer): 10-10 .
25.
Owens, S. (2000) “‘Engaging the Public’: Information and Deliberation in Environmental Policy,”Environment and Planning A32: 1141-1148 .
26.
Owens, S. and Cowell, R. (2002) Land and Limits: Interpreting Sustainability in the Planning Process. London: Routledge .
27.
Oxley-Green, A. (2005) “Stakeholder Participation in Company Approaches to Sustainable Development,” EngD Portfolio Vol. II, University of Surrey .
28.
Petts, J. (1994) “Effective Waste Management: Understanding and Dealing with Public Concerns,”Waste Management and Research12: 207-222 .
29.
Petts, J. , Horlick Jones, T. and Murdock, G. (2001) Social Amplification of Risk: The Media and the Public. Health and Safety Executive Contract Research Report 329/2001. Sudbury: HSE Books .
30.
Rayner, S. (2003) “Democracy in the Age of Assessment: Reflections on the Roles of Expertise and Democracy in Public-sector Decision Making,”Science and Public Policy30(3): 163-170 .
31.
RCEP (1998) Setting Environmental Standards, 21st Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Cm. 4053. London: The Stationery Office .
32.
RCEP (2003) Chemicals in Products: Safeguarding the Environment and Human Health, 24th Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Cm. 5827. London: The Stationery Office .
33.
RSA (2005) Science based Business and Social Research. Report of workshop organized by RSA “Forum for Technology, Citizens and the Market” and Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) “Science and Society Programme,” 21 April. URL: http://www.techforum.org.uk/acrobat/ESRC%2520final20report_1205.pdf
34.
Stern, P. C. and Fineberg, H. V. , eds (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington DC: National Academy Press .
35.
Stilgoe, J. (2007) “The (Co-)Production of Public Uncertainty: UK Scientific Advice on Mobile Phone Health Risks,”Public Understanding of Science16: 45-61 .
36.
Stirling, A. (2006) “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 Citizen: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, pp. 218-231. London: Zed .
37.
Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos .
38.
Woolgar, S. and Pawluch, D. (1985) “Ontological Gerrymandering: The Anatomy of Social Problems Explanations,”Social Problems32(3): 214-227 .
39.
Wynne, B. (1989a) “Sheep Farming after Chernobyl: A Case Study in Community Scientific Information,”Environment31: 10-15, 33-39 .
40.
Wynne, B. (1989b) “Frameworks of Rationality in Risk Management: Towards the Testing of Naïve Sociology,” in J. Brown (ed.) Environmental Threats: Perception, Analysis and Management, ch. 3. London: Belhaven Press .
41.
Wynne, B. (1992) “Misunderstood Misunderstandings: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science,”Public Understanding of Science1: 281-384 .
42.
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. 44-83. London: SAGE Publications .
