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.”
AllspawK.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 Science13: 417–28.
2.
BarbenD.FisherE.SelinC.GustonD. (2008) “Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration,” in HackettE.AmsterdamskaO.LynchM.E.WajcmanJ. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edn, pp. 979–1000. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
BarnsI.SchibeciR.DavisonA.ShawR. (2000) “‘What Do You Think about Genetic Medicine?’ Facilitating Sociable Public Discourse on Developments in the New Genetics,” Science, Technology and Human Values25(3): 283–308.
4.
BijkerW. (2003) “The Need for Public Intellectuals: A Space for STS,” Science, Technology and Human Values28(4): 443–50.
5.
BrownP.McCormickS.MayerB.ZavestoskiS.Morello-FroschR.Gasior AltmanL.SenierL. (2006) “A ‘Lab of Our Own’: Environmental Causation of Breast Cancer and Challenges to the Dominant Epidemiological Paradigm,” Science, Technology and Human Values31(5): 499–536.
6.
BurgessJ.StirlingA.ClarkJ.DaviesG.EamesM.StaleyK.WilliamsonS. (2007) “Deliberative Mapping: A Novel Analytic-Deliberative Methodology to Support Contested Science Policy,” Public Understanding of Science16(3): 299–322.
7.
CallonM.RabeharisoaV. (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 Values33(2): 230–61.
8.
CarolanM.S. (2008) “Democratizing Knowledge: Sustainable and Conventional Agricultural Field Days as Divergent Democratic Forms,” Science, Technology and Human Values33(4): 508–28.
9.
ChilversJ. (2008) “Deliberating Competence: Theoretical and Practitioner Perspectives on Effective Participatory Appraisal Practice,” Science, Technology and Human Values33(2): 155–85.
10.
CollinsH.M.EvansR. (2002) “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience,” Social Studies of Science32(2): 235–96.
11.
CollinsH.M.EvansR. (2007) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
DoubledayR. (2007) “Risk, Public Engagement and Reflexivity: Alternative Framings of the Public Dimensions of Nanotechnology,” Health, Risk and Society9(2): 211–27.
13.
DrakeF. (2006) “Mobile Phone Masts: Protesting the Scientific Evidence,” Public Understanding of Science15: 387–410.
14.
EinsiedelE. (2007) “Editorial: Of Publics and Science,” Public Understanding of Science16: 5–6.
15.
EinsiedelE.JelsøeE.BreckT. (2001) “Publics and the Technology Table: The Consensus Conference in Denmark, Canada and Australia,” Public Understanding of Science10: 83–98.
16.
EpsteinS. (1995) “The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials,” Science, Technology and Human Values20(4): 408–37.
17.
EvansR.PlowsA. (2007) “Listening Without Prejudice? Re-discovering the Value of the Disinterested Citizen,” Social Studies of Science37(6): 827–53.
18.
FeltU. (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 Science38(2): 233–57.
19.
FiorinoD.J. (1990) “Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms,” Science, Technology and Human Values15(2): 226–43.
20.
FisherE.MahajanR.L.MitchamC. (2006) “Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance from Within,” Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society26(6): 485–96.
21.
GavelinK.WilsonR.DoubledayR. (2007) “Democratic Technologies? The Final Report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG).” London: Involve.
22.
GovenJ. (2003) “Deploying the Consensus Conference in New Zealand: Democracy and De-problematization,” Public Understanding of Science12: 423–40.
23.
GovenJ. (2006) “Processes of Inclusion, Cultures of Calculation, Structures of Power: Scientific Citizenship and the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification,” Science, Technology and Human Values31(5): 565–98.
24.
GustonD.H.SarewitzD. (eds) (2006) Shaping Science and Technology Policy: The Next Generation of Research (Science and Technology in Society). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
25.
HamlettP.W. (2003) “Technology Theory and Deliberative Democracy,” Science, Technology and Human Values28(1): 112–40.
26.
HeathC.vom LehnD. (2008) “Configuring ‘Interactivity’: Enhancing Engagement in Science Centres and Museums,” Social Studies of Science38(1): 63–91.
27.
Horlick-JonesT.RoweG.WallsJ. (2007) “Citizen Engagement Processes as Information Systems: The Role of Knowledge and the Concept of Translation Quality,” Public Understanding of Science16(3): 259–78.
28.
IlesA. (2007) “Identifying Health Risk in Consumer Products: Non-governmental Organizations and Civic Epistemologies,” Public Understanding of Science16(4): 371–91.
29.
IrwinA. (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London and New York: Routledge.
30.
IrwinA. (2001) “Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences,” Public Understanding of Science10(1): 1–18.
31.
IrwinA. (2006) “The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the ‘New’ Scientific Governance,” Social Studies of Science36(2): 299–320.
32.
IrwinA.MichaelM. (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
33.
JasanoffS. (1995) Science at the Bar: Law, Science and Technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
JasanoffS. (2003a) “Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science,” Minerva41: 223–44.
35.
JasanoffS. (2003b) “Breaking the Waves in Science Studies: Comment on H.M. Collins and Robert Evans, ‘The Third Wave of Science Studies,’”Social Studies of Science33(3): 389–400.
36.
JasanoffS. (ed.) (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order. London and New York: Routledge.
37.
JasanoffS. (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
Knorr-CetinaK. (1981) The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
39.
LatourB. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
40.
LatourB. (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
LatourB. (2004) “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern,” Critical Inquiry30(2): 225–48.
42.
LatourB.WoolgarS. ([1979] 1986) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
43.
LengwilerM. (2008) “Participatory Approaches in Science and Technology: Historical Origins and Current Practices in Critical Perspective,” Science, Technology and Human Values33(2): 186–200.
44.
LewensteinB.V. (2003) “Editorial,” Public Understanding of Science12: 357–8.
45.
LezaunJ.SonerydL. (2007) “Consulting Citizens: Technologies of Elicitation and the Mobility of Publics,” Public Understanding of Science16: 279–97.
46.
McCormickS. (2007) “Democratizing Science Movements: A New Framework for Mobilization and Contestation,” Social Studies of Science37(4): 609–23.
47.
MacnaghtenP.KearnesM.WynneB. (2005) “Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?,” Science Communication27(2): 268–91.
48.
MarresN. (2007) “The Issue Deserves More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy,” Social Studies of Science37(5): 759–80.
49.
MiahA. (2005) “Genetics, Cyberspace and Bioethics: Why not a Public Engagement with Ethics?,” Public Understanding of Science14: 409–21.
50.
MichaelM. (2002) “Comprehension, Apprehension, Prehension: Heterogeneity and the Public Understanding of Science,” Science, Technology and Human Values27(3): 357–78.
51.
MillerC.EdwardsP. (eds) (2001) Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52.
NowotnyH. (2007) “How Many Policy Rooms Are There? Evidence-based and Other Kinds of Science Policies,” Science, Technology and Human Values32(4): 479–90.
53.
NowotnyH.ScottP.GibbonsM. (2001) Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. London: Polity Press.
54.
ParrD. (2005) “Will Nanotechnology Make the World a Better Place?,” Trends in Biotechnology23(8): 395–8.
55.
PickeringA. (ed.) (1992) Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
56.
PickeringA. (1995) The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
57.
PidgeonN.Rogers-HaydenT. (2007) “Opening Up Nanotechnology Dialogue with the Publics: Risk Communication or ‘Upstream Engagement’?,” Health, Risk and Society9(2): 191–210.
58.
PidgeonN.PoortingaW.RoweG.Horlick JonesT.WallsJ. (2005) “Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate,” Risk Analysis25(2): 467–79.
59.
PowellM.ColinM. (2008) “Meaningful Citizen Engagement in Science and Technology: What Would it Really Take?,” Science Communication30(1): 126–36.
60.
PowellM.KleinmanD. (2008) “Building Citizen Capacities for Participation in Nanotechnology Decision-making: The Democratic Virtues of the Consensus Conference Model,” Public Understanding of Science17: 329–48.
61.
RabeharisoaV.CallonM. (2004) “Patients and Scientists in French Muscular Dystrophy Research,” in JasanoffS. (ed.) States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order, pp. 142–61. London and New York: Routledge.
62.
RipA. (2003) “Constructing Expertise in a Third Wave of Science Studies?,” Social Studies of Science33(3): 419–34.
63.
RipA.te KulveH. (2008) “Constructive Technology Assessment and Socio-technical Scenarios,” in FisherE.SelinC.WetmoreJ.M. (eds) The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, vol. 1, pp. 49–70. Dordrecht: Springer.
64.
RipA.MisaT.SchotJ. (eds) (1995) Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Pinter Publishers.
65.
Rogers-HaydenT.PidgeonN. (2007) “Moving Engagement ‘Upstream’? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Academy of Engineering’s Inquiry,” Public Understanding of Science16: 345–64.
RothA.L.DunsbyJ.BeroL.A. (2003) “Framing Processes in Public Commentary on US Federal Tobacco Control Regulation,” Social Studies of Science33(1): 7–44.
68.
RoweG.FrewerL.J. (2000) “Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation,” Science, Technology and Human Values23(1): 3–29.
69.
RoweG.FrewerL.J. (2004) “Evaluating Public Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda,” Science, Technology and Human Values30(4): 512–56.
70.
RoweG.FrewerL.J. (2005) “A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms,” Science, Technology and Human Values30(2): 251–90.
71.
RoweG.MarshR.FrewerL.J. (2004) “Evaluation of a Deliberative Conference,” Science, Technology and Human Values29(1): 88–121.
72.
RoweG.Horlick-JonesT.WallsJ.PidgeonN. (2005) “Difficulties in Evaluating Public Engagement Initiatives: Reflections on an Evaluation of the UK GM Nation Public Debate about Transgenic Crops,” Public Understanding of Science14: 331–52.
73.
RoweG.Horlick-JonesT.WallsJ.PoortingaW.PidgeonN. (2008) “Analysis of a Normative Framework for Evaluating Public Engagement Exercises: Reliability, Validity and Limitations,” Public Understanding of Science17: 419–41.
74.
ScottA.Du PlessisR. (2008) “Eliciting Situated Knowledges about New Technologies,” Public Understanding of Science17: 105–19.
75.
Scott-MurdockB.WiessnerC.SextonK. (2005) “Stakeholder Participation in Voluntary Environmental Agreements: Analysis of 10 Project XL Case Studies,” Science, Technology and Human Values30(2): 223–50.
76.
SeifertF. (2006) “Local Steps in an International Career: A Danish-style Consensus Conference in Austria,” Public Understanding of Science15: 73–88.
77.
ShapinS.SchafferS. (1985) Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
78.
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.
79.
SonerydL. (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 Values32(3): 287–314.
80.
StenekesN.ColebatchH.K.WaiteD.T.AshboltN.J. (2006) “Risk and Governance in Water Recycling: Public Acceptance Revisited,” Science, Technology and Human Values31(2): 107–34.
81.
StilgoeJ. (2007) “The (Co-) Production of Public Uncertainty: UK Scientific Advice on Mobile Phone Health Risks,” Public Understanding of Science16(1): 45–61.
82.
StirlingA. (2005) “Opening up or Closing Down? Analysis, Participation and Power in the Social Appraisal of Technology,” in LeachM.ScoonesI.WynneB. (eds) Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, pp. 118–32. London: Zed Books.
83.
StirlingA. (2008) “‘Opening Up’ and ‘Closing Down’: Power, Participation and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology,” Science, Technology and Human Values33(2): 262–94.
84.
TuttonR. (2007) “Constructing Participation in Genetic Data Bases: Citizenship, Governance and Ambivalence,” Science, Technology and Human Values32(2): 172–95.
85.
TytlerR.DugganS.GottR. (2001) “Public Participation in an Environmental Dispute: Implications for Science Education,” Public Understanding of Science10: 343–64.
86.
WebsterA. (2007) “Reflections on Reflexive Engagement: Response to Nowotny and Wynne,” Science, Technology and Human Values32(5): 608–15.
87.
WicksonF.CarewA.L.RussellW. (2006) “Transdisciplinary Research: Characteristics, Quandaries and Quality,” Futures38(9): 1046–59.
88.
WilliamsR. (2008) “Compressed Foresight and Narrative Bias: Pitfalls in Assessing High Technology Futures,” in FisherE.SelinC.WetmoreJ.M. (eds) The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, vol. 1, pp. 265–289. Dordrecht: Springer.
89.
WilsdonJ. (2005) “Paddling Upstream: New Currents in European Technology Assessment,” in RodemeyerM.SarewitzD.WilsdonJ.The Future of Technology Assessment, pp. 22–9. Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
90.
WynneB. (1996) “May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide,” in LashS.SzerszynskiB.WynneB. (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, pp. 44–84. London: SAGE.
91.
WynneB. (2003) “Seasick on the Third Wave? Subverting the Hegemony of Propositionalism,” Social Studies of Science33(3): 401–17.
92.
WynneB. (2006) “Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science: Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?,” Community Genetics9(3): 211–20.
93.
WynneB. (2007a) “Dazzled by the Mirage of Influence? STS-SSK in Multivalent Registers of Relevance,” Science, Technology and Human Values32(4): 491–503.
94.
WynneB. (2007b) “Public Participation in Science and Technology: Performing and Obscuring a Political-Conceptual Category Mistake,” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal1(1): 99–110.
95.
WynneB.FeltU. (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.
96.
ZavestoskiS.BrownP.MeadowL.McCormickS.MayerB. (2002) “Science, Policy, Activism, and War: Defining the Health of Gulf War Veterans,” Science, Technology and Human Values27(2): 171–205.
97.
ZavestoskiS.ShulmanS.SchlosbergD. (2006) “Democracy and the Environment on the Internet: Electronic Citizen Participation in Regulatory Rulemaking,” Science, Technology and Human Values31(4): 383–408.
