Suchergebnisse

Social scientists operate in a range of roles within the public engagement with science and technology agenda. Social scientists' strengths in respect to "translation" and "intermediary" skills have captured attention at a time of disciplinary pressure to demonstrate impact. This article explores how social scientists' engaged in public engagement with science and technology consider their role(s), drawing on 21 semistructured interviews and Horst and Michael's proposals of an emergence model, in addition to ongoing discussions related to expertise. The findings suggest there are many benefits when social scientists engage with "strangers," both scientific and public, but that focusing only on pragmatic elements misses the true opportunity such working relationships can offer among critical friends.

Public engagement with science and technology is a central theme in the field of Public Understanding of Science (PUS), particularly in Europe. Alongside public consultation exercises and similar activities aimed at generating engagement, there is a need for good survey indicators of the general climate for engagement with science and technology among the public. With internationally focused PUS studies increasing in prominence, such survey indicators should ideally characterise engagement in approximately the same way across a range of countries, to facilitate sensible cross-national analyses involving this construct. This article presents cross-national analyses of two sets of questions posed in the Eurobarometer survey on public perceptions of biotechnology, conducted in 2002 in fifteen European countries. The items analysed capture a range of elements of the concept of engagement, both with science and technology, in general, and with biotechnology, in particular. Latent class models are used to explore typologies of types of engagement: substantively, to understand their content, and methodologically, to identify items which do not work well in these classifications. The analyses are also used to assess the statistical cross-national comparability of such typologies, and consequently to describe variations in levels of engagement across countries.

A number of researchers have been analysing apparent shifts from top-down approaches to public engagement with science and technology towards more participatory ones. Some have revealed the existence of often unacknowledged assumptions about how science and public should interact. These normative visions shape public engagement and may go against any shift towards inclusiveness. To further probe this, interviews with 41 stem cell scientists were carried out. They reveal diverse normative visions of publics, scientists, dialogue, relevant technical and political capital, and scientific citizenship. From this, six ideal types of public engagement with science and technology are constructed and connected to models of democracy. This typology, built on an analytical framework that draws on Science & Technology Studies, Sociology and Political Theory, can be used as a heuristic device to examine particular instances of (and discourses about) engagement. This enables reflections on their legitimacy and opens up for potential transformation the norms that underlie them.

Geoengineering consists of a set of techniques whose aim is to avoid the disastrous consequences of global warming, such as solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal. Due to its controversial nature, over the past decade various exercises of public participation with geoengineering have been put in place, particularly in the Global North. This article draws on empirical data stemming from six online focus groups on public engagement with geoengineering conducted in Portugal. In contrast to previous research, we included situated publics to emphasize the political implications of geoengineering, bringing to the debate those with a potential stake in the matter - environmentalists, activists, university students, science communicators and promoters of holistic practices. We suggest that the elusive and uncertain character of geoengineering moves the discussion away from its technological specificity, bringing to the fore some of the socio-political, economic and ethical tensions underpinning the climate crisis.

Public participation in science, technology, and innovation is a significant trend in contemporary western democracies, which increasingly implicates the social scien-tist in diverse ways. Yet, the question as to how social scientists actually engage in public participation, and how their engagements may be normatively justified, is not the object of systematic consideration in participatory frameworks and in ac-tion-oriented social science. In this article, we ask how social scientists can take responsibility for their normative choices when engaging in participatory practice. Drawing on our experiences as researchers of public participation in nanotechnol-ogies in Flanders (Belgium) and France, respectively, we reflectively consider our relationship with research subjects, the political relevance of our work, and the research problems we deal with. This leads us to articulate three modes of norma-tivity that inform our commitments: a process mode, a critical mode, and a mode inspired by Actor Network Theory. Differentiating between these modes and gar-nering sensitivity towards each mode's characteristics opens the way to experi-mentation with different types of normativity through which the social scientist accounts for his commitments and shifts or deepens his engagements in response to conflicting demands and real-world circumstances. Thus, rather than endorsing one approach to participation, we recommend a pragmatic attitude that implies systematic probing of the roles the social scientist assumes vis-à-vis other partici-pants, interests, and objectives, and that enables him to continually adjust his po-sition in view of the particularities of his situation. ; Peer reviewed

This introductory essay looks back on the two decades since the journal Public Understanding of Science was launched. Drawing on the invited commentaries in this special issue, we can see narratives of continuity and change around the practice and politics of public engagement with science. Public engagement would seem to be a necessary but insufficient part of opening up science and its governance. Those of us who have been involved in advocating, conducting and evaluating public engagement practice could be accused of over-promising. If we, as social scientists, are going to continue a normative commitment to the idea of public engagement, we should therefore develop new lines of argument and analysis. Our support for the idea of public engagement needs qualifying, as part of a broader, more ambitious interest in the idea of publicly engaged science.

Introduction: How the Sociology of Science and Technology Addresses Science and Society Relations (Ana Delicado) -- Part I: Scientists' Research Practices and Responses to Societal Demands -- Norms, Competition, and Visibility in Contemporary Science: The Legacy of Robert K. Merton ( Massimiano Bucchi) -- Re-distributing Responsibility in Transdisciplinary Knowledge Production and Circulation (Thomas Völker) -- How Do Scientists Doing Animal Experimentation View the Co-evolution Between Science and Society? The Swiss Case (Fabienne Crettaz Von Roten) -- Science-Society Relations in a Context of Technological Change: How Scientists Working on Renewable Energy Technologies Perceive Their Role in the Energy Transition (Luís Junqueira) -- Part II: Science Communication and Citizen Participation in Science -- Bringing Science to Public: Is it a Matter for Scientific Associations? (Cristina Palma Conceição) -- Turning the Gaze on Ourselves: Public Communication of Sociology (Ana Delicado) -- Technologies of Participation in Water Plans in Portugal: What kind of Science–Society Relation Are We Talking About? (Sofia Bento & Oriana Rainho Brás) -- Material Trajectories: How issues Come to Matter in a Citizen Conference (Guillem Palà & Miquel Domènech) -- Two Turtles: Children and Autonomy in Participatory Technological Design (Núria Vallès-Peris & Miquel Domènech).

Young children are actors usually excluded from political decisions and also from many science communication projects. Participatory science communication models can help to connect their everyday life with both local policies and science-related content. Using visual methodologies for engagement, we aimed at understanding what preschool children prefer in the city landscape. Results show how young children envision a "better city" and how that construction might defy current scientific knowledge. It further illustrates how science communication can be used to co-produce new knowledge, contributing to the debate about people's needs and perceptions related to science-based options.

Drawing on social science conversations at a lively cafe in Bristol, this highly original book explores the value of public engagement in a wider social science context. The chapters range from themes such as the dialogic character of the social sciences, pragmatism in responses, and the underpinnings of managerial approaches to the restructuring of higher education

This introductory essay looks back on the two decades since the journal Public Understanding of Science was launched. Drawing on the invited commentaries in this special issue, we can see narratives of continuity and change around the practice and politics of public engagement with science. Public engagement would seem to be a necessary but insufficient part of opening up science and its governance. Those of us who have been involved in advocating, conducting and evaluating public engagement practice could be accused of over-promising. If we, as social scientists, are going to continue a normative commitment to the idea of public engagement, we should therefore develop new lines of argument and analysis. Our support for the idea of public engagement needs qualifying, as part of a broader, more ambitious interest in the idea of publicly engaged science.

The participation of non-professionally trained people in so-called citizen science (CS) projects is a much discussed topic at the moment. Frequently, however, the contribution of citizens is limited to only a few narrow tasks. Focusing on an initiative dedicated to the study of the human microbiome, this paper describes such a case where citizen participation is limited to the provision of funding, samples, and personal data. Researchers opted for a crowdsourced approaches because other forms of funding and recruitment did not seem feasible. We argue that despite the narrow understanding of participation in the context of some CS projects, they can address some of the democratic concerns related to scientific knowledge creation. For example, CS and crowdsourcing can help to foster dialogue between researchers and publics, and increase the influence of citizens on research agenda setting.

Despite the societal relevance of energy research, there is a distinct lack of citizen science initiatives in the field. This paper reports the experience of a participatory and innovative strategy to develop a citizen science initiative for solar energy research. A number of stakeholders participated in the definition and implementation of the initiative, and tools such as surveys and a hackathon were employed. The process described aims to provide a blueprint for transforming the relationship between citizens and research into societal challenges. Here we describe the collaborative process and analyse the main opportunities, limitations and future perspectives. ; This work was supported by funds from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the project "Fostering a Next Generation of European Photovoltaic Society through Open Science" (Grant agreement 787289).

Timely public engagement in science presents a broad challenge. It includes more than research into the ethical, legal and social dimensions of science and state-initiated citizen's participation. Introducing a public perspective on science while safeguarding its public value involves a diverse set of actors: natural scientists and engineers, technology assessment institutes, policy makers, social scientists, citizens, interest organisations, artists, and last, but not least, politicians.

This original edited collection explores the value of public engagement in a wider social science context. Its main themes range from the dialogic character of social science, to the pragmatic responses, and to the managerial policies underpinning the restructuring of Higher Education.