Art for public engagement on emerging and controversial technologies: A literature review

Outcomes

To what extent did the studies include wider perspectives and more generally broadened technological trajectories through art? A few studies explicitly aimed to broaden the range of perspectives and consequently widen the scope of issues concerned (Bhowmik et al., 2013; Cox et al., 2009; Puig et al., 2018; Roeser et al., 2018). Puig et al. (2018), for example, wanted to involve a “broad range of perspectives” in the development of brain scan technologies, because these technologies were considered to play an important role in “ideas about self and about human capacities and behavior” (2018: 111). As these aims remained fairly abstract, however, it remained unclear to what extent they were also achieved. It was more common for studies to report more measurable inclusion outcomes, specifically about the size of their audience, the diversity of their audience, and the quality of their contributions.

In terms of audience size, studies only reported successes. Four studies reported that many people had participated (Bhowmik et al., 2013; Cox et al., 2009; Nisker et al., 2006; Smith and Zeller, 2017). Of these studies, Cox et al. (2009) reported the largest number of participants (n = 741). They used this number to emphasize the legitimacy of their theatrical performance on preimplantation genetic diagnosis for further policy development. Four other studies reported large audience sizes in the sense that their artwork had been covered by the popular press, which was seen both as a measure of a broad possible uptake as well as of the artists’ personal success (Auger, 2013, 2014; Holmer et al., 2015; Smith and Zeller, 2017). One study, however, warned against trying to reach large audiences: Anderson (2015) stated that when artworks on climate change try to reach a mass audience, they usually oversimplify the issues.

The reports on diversity of the audience were more mixed: Two studies mentioned that they were positively surprised by the diversity of people that had joined (Bhowmik et al., 2013; Kupper, 2017), but five studies reported that they had failed to reach the audience of their preference (Holmer et al., 2015), excluded certain publics (Bhowmik et al., 2013), or primarily engaged those who were higher educated, living in urban areas and already interested in the topic (Bendor et al., 2017; Cox et al., 2009; Nisker et al., 2006). A lack of diversity was considered problematic, especially for studies that sought to inform policy, because diversity was seen as a means to achieve demographic representation.

Finally, the studies reported whether participants were able to make valuable contributions to the debate. Last (2012), for example, wanted to show that citizens could join the conversation on nanotechnologies so that governments would take their concerns more seriously. The outcomes were mixed, however: in some studies, participants were found to make valuable contributions (Carvalho and Nunes, 2013; Last, 2012; Nisker et al., 2006), but in other cases, participants were unable or unwilling to participate as envisioned (Carvalho and Nunes, 2013; Holmer et al., 2015; Wieringa et al., 2011; Yaneva et al., 2009). Holmer et al. (2015), for example, found that a major arts festival in San Jose, California, did not offer the right setting to engage visitors in in-depth conversations about agriculture robots.

Processes

The studies aimed to achieve inclusion in two different ways. First, many studies aimed to create attractive experiences that people wanted to participate in (Auger, 2013; Bhowmik et al., 2013; de Ridder-Vignone, 2012; Harmon, 2015; Last, 2012; Marmor, 2008; Nisker et al., 2006; Smith and Zeller, 2017). Although some authors simply wanted participants to enjoy themselves (e.g. Anderson, 2015; Holmer et al., 2015; Puig et al., 2018), other authors saw enjoyment as a vehicle for more in-depth participation (Harmon, 2015; Holmer et al., 2015; Wieringa et al., 2011). Art was considered a good vehicle for participation because it could use humor and empathy to draw in the crowds and because it was considered easier to understand than science and technology (Auger, 2013; Harmon, 2015; Nisker et al., 2006; Roeser et al., 2018; Wieringa et al., 2011). Five studies reported that their participants had enjoyed themselves (Anderson, 2015; Bendor et al., 2017; Holmer et al., 2015; Puig et al., 2018; Toonders et al., 2016), but two studies also found that enjoyment did not lead to more in-depth participation (Holmer et al., 2015; Wieringa et al., 2011).

Second, the studies aimed to make people feel like they had a say (Carvalho and Nunes, 2013; Cox et al., 2009; de Ridder-Vignone, 2012; Holmer et al., 2015; Last, 2012). This was typically done by asking for input from the audience in one way or another (Bendor et al., 2017; Bhowmik et al., 2013; Carvalho and Nunes, 2013; Cox et al., 2009; Davies et al., 2013; Last, 2012; Marmor, 2008; Smith and Zeller, 2017). For a play on nanotechnology, for example, Carvalho and Nunes (2013) asked the spectators to become the main creators and actors of the play, suggesting that these spectators would gain agency in technology discussions in general if they gained agency on stage. The efforts to give people a say were somewhat successful: two studies reported that participants had indeed gained confidence about participating in discussions about technology as a result of their engagement (Cox et al., 2009; Last, 2012).

Outcomes

To what extent did the studies make visible how technologies come into being and interact with the world? Generally, the studies seemed very focused on this; in fact, the studies appeared to consider it a core feature of art to bring out in the open what went unnoticed before. The purpose of engagement was therefore usually to make people realize how they relate to and interact with technology (Amoore and Hall, 2010; Davies et al., 2013; Nieman, 2005; Smith and Zeller, 2017) so that the technology in question would become more open for debate (Altamirano-Allende and Selin, 2016; Bhowmik et al., 2013; Harmon, 2015; Kupper, 2017; Wieringa et al., 2011) and so that appropriate measures could be taken (Anderson, 2015; Last, 2012). The studies focused on three types of technology in particular: (1) technologies that were inaccessible for people without specific knowledge and tools, such as nano- and biotechnologies (de Ridder-Vignone, 2012; Last, 2012; McMullen and Winkler, 2018; Marmor, 2008), (2) ubiquitous technologies that were “hiding in plain sight,” such as digital urban infrastructures (Altamirano-Allende and Selin, 2016; Davies et al., 2013), and (3) technologies that were literally hidden from view, such as smart energy meters in a basement (Bhowmik et al., 2013). Five studies found that participants were better able to recognize, articulate and discuss technology as a result of their engagement (Davies et al., 2013; Kupper, 2017; Sleenhoff, 2016; Toonders et al., 2016; Wieringa et al., 2011), but three studies also mentioned that it was not clear what the artwork aimed to reveal, because the artwork was too subtle (Betten et al., 2017; Davies et al., 2013; Kilker, 2017).

Processes

The studies tried to achieve anticipation in four ways. First, seemingly intangible socio-technical interactions and social implications were made more understandable by turning them into a personal experience. This personal experience could take several forms: In four studies, the socio-technical interactions in question were mirrored in the interaction with the artwork (Altamirano-Allende and Selin, 2016; Bendor et al., 2017; Last, 2012; Marmor, 2008; Nieman, 2005); Bendor et al. (2017), for example, let participants walk a labyrinth to symbolize the difficulties of navigating climate change debates. In five studies, seemingly intangible phenomena were translated to sensory experiences (Bhowmik et al., 2013; de Ridder-Vignone, 2012; Last, 2012; McMullen and Winkler, 2018; Marmor, 2008); Bhowmik et al. (2013), for example, adjusted the brightness of a streetlamp according to how much energy was saved by the neighborhood. And, finally, in three studies, the artist acted as a mediator between public and expert (Elam, 2005; Koski and Holst, 2017; Marmor, 2008); in Marmor (2008), for example, the artist tried to build a satellite and engaged the audience in her learning process.

Second, studies used various methods to draw attention to whatever they wanted to bring to the fore. Some studies mentioned exaggeration as a tool to highlight specific elements (Auger, 2013; Roeser et al., 2018; Toonders et al., 2016; Wieringa et al., 2011)—even though caricatures and stereotypes were also found to oversimplify and polarize the conversation (Toonders et al., 2016; Wieringa et al., 2011). Other studies focused the attention of the viewer by combining familiarity with strangeness (Amoore and Hall, 2010; Auger, 2013, 2014; Koski and Holst, 2017; Puig et al., 2018; Smith and Zeller, 2017). Puig et al. (2018) for example created an installation that looked like a medical brain scan (familiar), but actually asked users to store their personal memories at a specific location within the brain (strange). In this way, the installation brought the participant’s attention to the widespread but debated efforts of neuroscientists to localize brain functions. Interestingly, two studies did not bring out whatever they wanted to show but trained participants to see what they wanted them to see: they taught citizens to recognize the technologies in their city with photography workshops (Altamirano-Allende and Selin, 2016; Davies et al., 2013).

Third, nine studies tried to explore possible future socio-technical interactions and social implications of technology through experimentation (Anderson, 2015; Auger, 2013, 2014; Harmon, 2015; Kupper, 2017; Last, 2012; Roeser et al., 2018; Sleenhoff, 2016; Toonders et al., 2016). In this context, art-based engagement was often described as a thought experiment or test-bed (Anderson, 2015; Harmon, 2015; Kupper, 2017; Last, 2012; Roeser et al., 2018; Toonders et al., 2016); a space to explore possible implications of new technologies before they are introduced in society, free from scientific and commercial constraints (Anderson, 2015; Auger, 2013, 2014; Roeser et al., 2018). Kupper (2017), for example, organized a forum theater where actors could play out suggestions from the audience to explore alternative futures.

Whatever other anticipatory processes the studies relied on, the studies were usually also concerned with achieving some form of plausibility. This is not without reason: three studies reported that perceived plausibility indeed enhanced general interest and emotional involvement (Auger, 2013; Nisker et al., 2006; Smith and Zeller, 2017). Plausibility was achieved in different ways, however: for most studies, achieving plausibility meant doing research to get the facts right (Auger, 2013; Harmon, 2015; Knippels et al., 2007; Last, 2012; Nisker et al., 2006; Toonders et al., 2016), but for three studies plausibility (also) meant making sure that the result seemed possible (Auger, 2013, 2014; Roeser et al., 2018). Auger (2014), for example, described how a photo series about a futuristic house robot came alive thanks to references to small, everyday experiences such as setting the table and cutting the meat.

Outcomes

To what extent did the studies help participants to reflect and think about the topics at hand? Seven studies reported that they had successfully caused participants to think about their topic or more specifically, form an opinion on the matter (Auger, 2013; Carvalho and Nunes, 2013; Holmer et al., 2015; Knippels et al., 2007; Kupper, 2017; Toonders et al., 2016; Wieringa et al., 2011). In all of these studies, it was not considered important what opinion the participants adopted exactly, but it was considered important that their opinion was authentic; Nieman (2005), for example, created space art to make sure citizens could form their own relation to space (emphasizing that citizens usually rely on astronomers to do that for them). Interestingly, in one study, it was also considered important that the opinions were well-founded (Knippels et al., 2007). To estimate the argumentative quality of student opinions on genetically modified crops, Knippels et al. (2007) counted the number of reasoning steps students used to come to an opinion (whereby more steps indicated better arguments).

In addition to an authentic opinion-forming process, studies reported having fostered some form of critique in the sense that participants started to analyze and question the technologies and their social implications. Some studies reported that they had managed to make participants more critical of a certain issue (Bendor et al., 2017; Bhowmik et al., 2013; Toonders et al., 2016); Bendor et al. (2017), for example, reported that participants had become more skeptical of simplistic conceptions of sustainability after engaging with their art installation. Others reported that participants had been involved in a critical reflection process, meaning that participants were torn between viewpoints (Altamirano-Allende and Selin, 2016; Betten et al., 2017; Cox et al., 2009; Kupper, 2017; Wieringa et al., 2011) and questioned each other without necessarily adopting a new or changed viewpoint (Carvalho and Nunes, 2013; Toonders et al., 2016). According to Cox et al. (2009), such an ongoing reflection process was important for policy development on preimplantation genetic diagnostics because it appreciated the complexity of the issues and prevented the discussion from closing too early.

Next to forms of individual reflection, 14 studies aimed to instigate dialogue, deliberation, or public debate (Altamirano-Allende and Selin, 2016; Amoore and Hall, 2010; Bhowmik et al., 2013; Carvalho and Nunes, 2013; Cox et al., 2009; Elam, 2005; Harmon, 2015; Holmer et al., 2015; Kilker, 2017; Koski and Holst, 2017; Kupper, 2017; McMullen and Winkler, 2018; Puig et al., 2018; Roeser et al., 2018; Yaneva et al., 2009). Kupper (2017) considered dialogue important in addition to individual reflection, because he thought individual viewpoints were always constructed in relation to a wider community. Dialogue was reported to enhance individual reflection (Bendor et al., 2017; Toonders et al., 2016), mutual understanding (Koski and Holst, 2017; Kupper, 2017), and construction of a shared vision (Altamirano-Allende and Selin, 2016).

Processes

To stimulate reflection, the studies applied two processes. The first process was to trigger emotions and intuitions (Betten et al., 2017; Cox et al., 2009; Elam, 2005; Koski and Holst, 2017; Kupper, 2017; Roeser et al., 2018; Sleenhoff, 2016). This process was considered important because decision-making on controversial and emerging technologies was thought to rely too much on ratio, professional knowledge, and verbal communication (Betten et al., 2017; Carvalho and Nunes, 2013; Cox et al., 2009; Elam, 2005; Koski and Holst, 2017; Kupper, 2017; Roeser et al., 2018; Sleenhoff, 2016). Instead, so it was argued, the complexity of decision-making on controversial and emerging technologies required the additional voice of emotions and intuitions. Art was thought to trigger emotions for decision-making in several steps: According to Sleenhoff (2016), art first triggers aesthetic emotions (like surprise, goosebumps, or wet eyes), then basic emotions (such as anger or happiness) and finally moral emotions (like pride, shame, or indignation). These moral emotions were then thought to point the way to what values were important to consider in the decision-making process, “such as autonomy, fairness, and justice” (Roeser et al., 2018: 2).

The studies used various methods to trigger emotions and intuitions. They depicted characters and situations that the audience could identify with (Cox et al., 2009; Elam, 2005), involved audience members in story development (Carvalho and Nunes, 2013; Elam, 2005; Koski and Holst, 2017; Kupper, 2017) or let participants create art themselves so that they could express themselves (Carvalho and Nunes, 2013; Kupper, 2017; Toonders et al., 2016). Indeed, three studies reported that seeing characters’ emotional responses on stage helped participants decide how they were feeling about the issues (Cox et al., 2009; Nisker et al., 2006; Toonders et al., 2016). However, various studies also warned that emotions and intuitions can be biased and should therefore be handled with care (Elam, 2005; Koski and Holst, 2017; Roeser et al., 2018; Sleenhoff, 2016). Elam (2005), for example, criticized how the makers of a documentary on biotechnology purposefully evoked strong emotions by narrowly framing biotechnology as an instrument to fight hunger and disease, and thereby ruling out alternative perspectives.

Fittingly, the second reflection process that we identified was to leave things open to interpretation—either literally or conceptually. Things were literally open to interpretation when participants were free to explore the artworks in their own preferred order and at their own pace (Bendor et al., 2017; de Ridder-Vignone, 2012; Holmer et al., 2015; Last, 2012; Nieman, 2005; Wieringa et al., 2011; Yaneva et al., 2009). De Ridder-Vignone (2012), for example, described how a nanotechnology exhibition was purposefully placed in the children’s section of an art museum to emphasize that participants were free to explore the exhibits in their own way. By contrast, 12 studies left things open for interpretation in a more conceptual way: they created indeterminate situations that required participants to make sense of themselves, for example, by presenting multiple perspectives on the same issue (Altamirano-Allende and Selin, 2016; Cox et al., 2009; Davies et al., 2013; Koski and Holst, 2017; Kupper, 2017; McMullen and Winkler, 2018; Toonders et al., 2016; Wieringa et al., 2011; Yaneva et al., 2009) or by triggering conflicting emotions (Amoore and Hall, 2010; Anderson, 2015; Auger, 2013; Bendor et al., 2017; Betten et al., 2017; Roeser et al., 2018). Betten et al. (2017), for example, described how a performance on biotechnology was both beautiful and gruesome, thereby inviting the audience members to develop their own opinion. Three studies confirmed that conflicting emotions fueled the reflection process (Auger, 2013; Bendor et al., 2017; Betten et al., 2017). However, indeterminacy and uncertainty did not always fare well with the participants: citizens sometimes kept looking for the single correct answer (Bendor et al., 2017; Kupper, 2017), and when scientists were involved, they tended to omit uncertainties when they spoke about their work (Toonders et al., 2016; Yaneva et al., 2009).

Outcomes

To what extent did the studies influence technological trajectories? No studies reported that technologies or technology development processes changed in response to the engagement initiative, but two studies did report that opportunities were created to this end: Koski and Holst (2017) reported that the scientist involved better understood the citizen perspective thanks to his collaboration with the artist and Toonders et al. (2016) found that the science students involved in their theatrical approach were now better prepared to converse with the public.

In lack of realized outcomes to report, we also investigated the intended outcomes regarding responsiveness. Fourteen studies aimed to inspire participants to take action after participation (Carvalho and Nunes, 2013; Cox et al., 2009; de Ridder-Vignone, 2012; Harmon, 2015; Holmer et al., 2015; Last, 2012) or to influence technology development (Auger, 2014; Bhowmik et al., 2013; de Ridder-Vignone, 2012; McMullen and Winkler, 2018; Roeser et al., 2018), technology governance (Cox et al., 2009; Davies et al., 2013; Harmon, 2015; Last, 2012; Nisker et al., 2006), or social implications of technology (Altamirano-Allende and Selin, 2016; Anderson, 2015; McMullen and Winkler, 2018). Furthermore, these aims were directed at the technology development system at large (Altamirano-Allende and Selin, 2016; Auger, 2014; de Ridder-Vignone, 2012) or at actor groups including the public (Roeser et al., 2018), policy-makers (Harmon, 2015; Last, 2012; Roeser et al., 2018), technology developers (Roeser et al., 2018), and future scientists (Koski and Holst, 2017; Toonders et al., 2016).

Not all studies aimed to influence technological trajectories, however. In fact, some were explicitly against it: four studies warned that art made with a specific purpose in mind risks instrumentalization and therefore threatens artist autonomy (Betten et al., 2017; Holmer et al., 2015; Roeser et al., 2018; Sleenhoff, 2016). One of the curators in Betten et al. (2017), for example, thought that when art is made to serve a purpose, it is made to be interpreted in a single way and thereby defies the very definition of art. Others were less strict: they objected against art that was made for science communication and promotion but did encourage art that aimed to problematize an issue (Amoore and Hall, 2010; Anderson, 2015; Betten et al., 2017).

Processes

The studies aimed to redirect technology trajectories by stimulating critical and imaginative reflection among publics and professionals (Altamirano-Allende and Selin, 2016; Auger, 2013, 2014; de Ridder-Vignone, 2012; Harmon, 2015; McMullen and Winkler, 2018; Roeser et al., 2018). The studies hoped that technological trajectories would be redirected “by enriching the thinking of all parties involved” (Harmon, 2015: 78). The studies provided three suggestions for how those critical, imaginative reflections might translate into concrete changes to technological trajectories approaches. First, they created opportunities for change by involving professionals (Altamirano-Allende and Selin, 2016; Bhowmik et al., 2013; Cox et al., 2009; Koski and Holst, 2017; Nisker et al., 2006; Toonders et al., 2016). Second, they taught technological professionals of the future to engage in ethical reflection and conversation (Koski and Holst, 2017; Toonders et al., 2016). Third, they thought of the long-term consequences of the artwork as a memory, reminding participants of that “which had previously slipped away from view” (Amoore and Hall, 2010: 307) whenever they would encounter the technology in the future.