scholarly journals Juggling Roles, Experiencing Dilemmas: The Challenges of SSH Scholars in Public Engagement

NanoEthics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jantien Willemijn Schuijer ◽  
Jacqueline Broerse ◽  
Frank Kupper
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Emerging Technologies ◽  
Change Agent ◽  
Stakeholder Dialogue ◽  
General Role ◽  
The Public ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Public Scrutiny

AbstractThe progressive introduction of emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology, has created a true testing ground for public engagement initiatives. Widespread experimentation has taken place with public and stakeholder dialogue and inclusive approaches to research and innovation (R&I) more generally. Against this backdrop, Social Science and Humanities (SSH) scholars have started to manifest themselves differently. They have taken on new roles in the public engagement field, including more practical and policy-oriented ones that seek to actively open the R&I system to wider public scrutiny. With public engagement gaining prominence, there has been a call for increased reflexivity among SSH scholars about their role in this field. In this paper, we study our own roles and stakes as SSH scholars in a European-funded public engagement project on responsible nanotechnology. We introduce a general role landscape and outline five distinct roles (engaged academic, deliberative practitioner, change agent, dialogue capacity builder, and project worker) that we—as SSH scholars—inhabited throughout the project. We discuss the synergistic potential of combining these five roles and elaborate on several tensions within the roles that we needed to navigate. We argue that balancing many roles requires explicit role awareness, reflexivity, and new competencies that have not been examined much in the public engagement literature so far. Our role landscape and exemplification of how it can be used to reflexively study one’s own practices may be a useful starting point for scholars who are seeking to better understand, assess, or communicate about their position in the public engagement field.

From stakeholder education to engagement, using strategies from social science.

2021 ◽  
pp. 35-47
Author(s):  
Beth Ventura ◽  
Erica Hogstad Fjæran
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
The Public

Abstract This chapter describes the challenges that arise when animal practitioners attempt to address the public regarding animal welfare rely on one-way education alone. Animal practitioners may benefit from a reimagining of what effective public engagement to improve animal welfare may look like.

scholarly journals Does really no one care? Analyzing the public engagement of communication scientists on Twitter

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 387-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jakob Jünger ◽  
Birte Fähnrich
Keyword(s):  
Social Networking ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Science And Society ◽  
Large Share ◽  
Scholarly Community ◽  
The Public ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Twitter Activity ◽  
The Impact

Recent publications question the public visibility of communication science as a discipline and its relevance for the broader society. To address this issue, we analyze the public engagement of communication scientists by using the example of their Twitter activity. We theoretically distinguish eight types of engagement and explore their empirical prevalence. The results show that a large share of communication is between peers, fulfilling social networking functions. Nevertheless, more than a quarter of the tweets are on political and social topics. In this way, communication scientists bring society into their scholarly community and thus act as bridge builders. They also reach diverse publics outside of science, such as followers from the field of economics. Our study thus highlights the diversity of connections between science and society and can offer a starting point to further research other fields of public engagement and the impact of the discipline on the public discourse.

Mutable Matter: Using Sensory Methods in Public Engagement with Nanotechnology

Leonardo ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Last
Keyword(s):  
Public Engagement ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Public Realm ◽  
Pilot Program ◽  
Art Practice ◽  
The Public ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Future

Mutable Matter is an experimental public engagement pilot program that seeks to enable non-scientists to explore and co-imagine the future of nanotechnology. Located at the intersection of geography, science communication and art practice, Mutable Matter is intended as a starting point for examining playful sensory engagement methods bridging tangible public and intangible scientific spaces. The project both challenges the role of non-scientists as mere commentators on pre-decided innovation trajectories and draws attention to the way scientific information is creatively encountered in the public realm.

scholarly journals Citizen science impact pathways for a positive contribution to public participation in science

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (06) ◽  
pp. A02
Author(s):  
Artemis Skarlatidou ◽  
Mordechai Haklay
Keyword(s):  
Citizen Science ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Positive Contribution ◽  
The Public ◽  
Impact Pathways ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Logic Models ◽  
Programme Effectiveness

Positioning citizen science within the broader historical public engagement framework demonstrates how it has the potential to effectively tackle research and innovation issues. Citizen science approaches have their own challenges, which need to be considered in order to achieve this aim and contribute to wider and deeper public engagement. However, programme evaluations, which discuss lessons learned in engaging the public and other stakeholders with science are rare. To address this gap, we present the H2020-funded DITOs project and discuss the use of logic models in citizen science. We share the project’s assumptions, design considerations for deeper engagement and its impact pathways demonstrating how logic models can be utilised in citizen science to monitor programme effectiveness and for their successful implementation. We hope that this work will inspire citizen science practitioners to use similar tools and by doing so, share their experiences and potential barriers. This knowledge is essential for improving the way citizen science is currently practiced and its impacts to both science and society.

scholarly journals Citizen Science Fiction: The Potential of Situated Speculative Prototyping for Public Engagement on Emerging Technologies

NanoEthics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jantien W. Schuijer ◽  
Jacqueline E. W. Broerse ◽  
Frank Kupper
Keyword(s):  
Science Fiction ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Innovation System ◽  
The Past ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Exchange Risk ◽  
Story Writing ◽  
Public Scrutiny ◽  
Risk Discourse

AbstractIn response to calls for a research and innovation system that is more open to public scrutiny, we have seen a growth of formal and informal public engagement activities in the past decades. Nevertheless, critiques of several persistent routines in public engagement continue to resurface, in particular the focus on expert knowledge, cognitive exchange, risk discourse, and understandings of public opinion as being static. In an attempt to break out of these routines, we experimented with an innovative engagement format that employs situated speculative prototyping to support citizens in contextualizing and discussing developments regarding—in this case—nanotechnology. This format invites participants to imagine and critically reflect on technological futures through collaborative prototyping and story-writing. In this paper, we outline five reconstructed contextualization patterns in which participants engaged during the format’s exercises and use these to assess the value of the format in the current engagement landscape. We show that situated speculative prototyping has potential in the realm of informal public engagement initiatives, taking an explorative approach, but also warn of ‘the designer fallacy’ as a prominent pitfall of prototyping that could reproduce techno-scientific framings and obstruct critical reflection on technological directions and implications if not treated with caution.

scholarly journals ‘The house’ as a framing device for public engagement in STEM museums

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Whiteley ◽  
Anette Stenslund ◽  
Ken Arnold ◽  
Thomas Söderqvist
Keyword(s):  
Public Engagement ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Multiple Perspectives ◽  
The Public ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Family Resemblances ◽  
Key Features ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Uk

In the last five to ten years, several science, technology, engineering and medicine (STEM) museums have been experimenting with new forms of public engagement, aiming to be places for curiosity-driven investigation of the cultures of science via multiple perspectives, bringing artists, scientists, researchers, clinicians, members of the public and others together. Yet these diverse and rapidly evolving sites lack a clear definition of their family resemblances – something we argue is crucial for better understanding, advocating, and evaluating what they do. As a starting point for this definitional project we propose ‘the house’ as a metaphor and framing device for public engagement in STEM museums, grounded in experiences at Medical Museion in Denmark and Wellcome Collection in the UK. We further suggest that a Goldilocks principle – the notion of lying between two poles of a continuum in a ‘just right’ position – captures several key features of what it is about the idea of a house that resonates with the approach to public engagement in these museums.Key words: STEM museums, science communication, public engagement, house.

scholarly journals Developing a methodology for public engagement with critical research

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-231
Author(s):  
Ruth Boyask ◽  
Katy Vigurs
Keyword(s):  
Young People ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Critical Research ◽  
Children And Young People ◽  
Public Spheres ◽  
Policy Influence ◽  
The Public ◽  
Starting Point

In this article we argue that a refined understanding of ‘public’ and ‘public engagement’ can help researchers who produce critical research make better decisions towards achieving policy influence. We acknowledge the challenges critical researchers face in putting their research to work within the public domain. Critical research struggles to gain influence in bounded public spheres where research is valued as a consumable commodity rather than for its integrity or capacity for informing change. A starting point for developing a method of engagement is to understand better ‘publics’ and the different ways they may be conceptualised. We draw on a framework of three conceptualisations of the public in public engagement: bounded, normative and emergent. We use this framework to analyse our own experience of public engagement and attempts at policy influence in the Respecting Children and Young People Project. Through this analysis we recognise alternative ways to conceive of publics that may direct us away from some courses of action, and open new possibilities for public engagement with critical research.

Communicating about Biodiversity, Public Engagement, and Climate Change

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikko Rask ◽  
Richard Worthington
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
World Wide ◽  
The Public ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Deliberative System ◽  
Ordinary Citizens ◽  
Policy Discourses

The term public engagement (PE) refers to processes that provide a distinct role for citizens or stakeholder groups in policymaking. Such engagement is distinctive because it aims to create opportunities for mutual learning among policymakers, scientists, stakeholders, and members of the public. In so doing, PE involves a particular type of voice in public debate and policymaking that is different from more established discourses, such as those expressed through official policymaking channels, scientific institutions, civil society activists, or the public media. By the early 1970s, PE had emerged in the context of an overall democratization movement in Western societies through such innovations as the “citizen jury” in the United States and “planning cells” in Germany. Today, it is often more pragmatically motivated, such as in the European Commission, where PE is seen as a tool for responsible research and innovation that helps to anticipate and assess potential implications and societal expectations of research and innovation, as well as to design more inclusive and sustainable research policies. The first global PE processes in history were created to incorporate citizen voices into United Nations (UN) conventions on biodiversity and climate change. Building on theories of deliberative democracy and tested PE practices, a new World Wide Views process was developed to provide informed and considered input from ordinary citizens to the 2009 UN climate summit. This and subsequent World Wide Views (WWViews) deliberations have demonstrated that PE may potentially open up policy discourses that are constricted and obfuscated by organized interests. A telling example is provided by the World Wide Views on Climate and Energy deliberation held on June 5, 2015, where nearly 10,000 ordinary citizens gathered in 76 countries to consider and express their views on the issues to be addressed at the UN climate summit in Paris later that year. In a noteworthy departure from prevailing media and policy discourses, two-thirds of the participating citizens saw measures to fight climate change as “mostly an opportunity to improve our quality of life,” while only a quarter saw them as “mostly a threat to our quality of life,” a result that was consistent across high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Recent research on PE has indicated that when effectively implemented, such processes can increase the legitimacy, quality, and capacity of decision-making. Earlier aspirations for broader impacts, such as the democratization of policymaking at all levels, are now less prominent but arguably indispensable for achieving both immediate and longer-range goals. The relatively new concept of a deliberative system captures this complexity by moving beyond the narrow focus on single PE events encountered in much research to date, recognizing that single events rarely affect the course of policymaking. The evolving prospects for PE in biodiversity and climate change policy, therefore, can be seen as requiring ongoing improvements in the capacities of the deliberative system.

scholarly journals Public Trust, Deliberative Engagement and Health Data Projects: Beyond Legal Provisions 

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-133
Author(s):  
Nishtha Bharti ◽  
Cian O'Donovan ◽  
Melanie Smallman ◽  
James Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Health Data ◽  
The Public ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Social License ◽  
Future Project

In England, a new scheme for collating and sharing General Practitioners’ data has faced resistance from various quarters and has been deferred twice. While insufficient communication and ambiguous safeguards explain the widespread dissatisfaction expressed by the public and experts, we argue how dwindling public trust can be the most damaging variable in this picture - with implications not only for this scheme, but for any future project that aims to mobilise health data for medical research and innovation. We also highlight the indispensability of deliberative public engagement on the values being prioritised in health data initiatives, the significance of securing social license in addition to legal assurances, and the lessons in it of global pertinence. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document