Minerva 48 (3):219-238 (2010)
AbstractThis paper investigates the dynamic and performative construction of publics in public engagement exercises. In this investigation, we, on the one hand, analyse how public engagement settings as political machineries frame particular kinds of roles and identities for the participating publics in relation to ‘the public at large’. On the other hand, we study how the participating citizens appropriate, resist and transform these roles and identities, and how they construct themselves and the participating group in relation to wider publics. The empirical basis of our argument is a discussion of four different kinds of participation events in Austria. Building on these observations we develop conclusions about the public up-take of public participation in technoscience and the role of public engagement in current techno-political cultures.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order.Sheila Jasanoff (ed.) - 2004 - Routledge.
Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought.Nikolas Rose, Professor Nikolas Rose & Rose - 1999 - Cambridge University Press.
Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States.Sheila Jasanoff - 2007 - Princeton Univ Press.
Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics.John S. Dryzek & Robert E. Goodin - 2006 - Politics and Society 34 (2):219-244.
Coming to Terms with Biomedical Technologies in Different Technopolitical Cultures: A Comparative Analysis of Focus Groups on Organ Transplantation and Genetic Testing in Austria, France, and the Netherlands.Peter Winkler, Maximilian Fochler & Ulrike Felt - 2010 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 35 (4):525-553.
Citations of this work
Remaking Participation in Science and Democracy.Matthew Kearnes & Jason Chilvers - 2020 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 45 (3):347-380.
Public Involvement in the Governance of Population-Level Biomedical Research: Unresolved Questions and Future Directions.Sonja Erikainen, Phoebe Friesen, Leah Rand, Karin Jongsma, Michael Dunn, Annie Sorbie, Matthew McCoy, Jessica Bell, Michael Burgess, Haidan Chen, Vicky Chico, Sarah Cunningham-Burley, Julie Darbyshire, Rebecca Dawson, Andrew Evans, Nick Fahy, Teresa Finlay, Lucy Frith, Aaron Goldenberg, Lisa Hinton, Nils Hoppe, Nigel Hughes, Barbara Koenig, Sapfo Lignou, Michelle McGowan, Michael Parker, Barbara Prainsack, Mahsa Shabani, Ciara Staunton, Rachel Thompson, Kinga Varnai, Effy Vayena, Oli Williams, Max Williamson, Sarah Chan & Mark Sheehan - 2021 - Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (7):522-525.
Why Do We Still Need Participatory Technology Assessment?Leonhard Hennen - 2012 - Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):27-41.
Into Blue Skies—a Transdisciplinary Foresight and Co-Creation Method for Adding Robustness to Visioneering.Mahshid Sotoudeh & Niklas Gudowsky - 2017 - NanoEthics 11 (1):93-106.
Hacking Humans? Social Engineering and the Construction of the “Deficient User” in Cybersecurity Discourses.Alexander Wentland & Nina Klimburg-Witjes - 2021 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 46 (6):1316-1339.
Similar books and articles
Publics in the Making: Mediating Different Methods of Engagement and the Publics These Construct: Commentary On: “Technologies of Democracy: Experiments and Demonstrations”. [REVIEW]Alison Mohr - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):667-672.
Avoiding Empty Rhetoric: Engaging Publics in Debates About Nanotechnologies.Renee Kyle & Susan Dodds - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):81-96.
Technologies of Democracy: Experiments and Demonstrations.Brice Laurent - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):649-666.
Knowledge Governance and Creativity in the Organisation of Production: What is in the Interests of 'Publics'?Silvia Sacchetti & Roger Sugden - unknown
Community Engagement to Facilitate, Legitimize and Accelerate the Advancement of Nanotechnologies in Australia.Kristen Lyons & James Whelan - 2010 - NanoEthics 4 (1):53-66.
Editorial Overview: Public Science and Technology Scholars: Engaging Whom?Erik Fisher - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):607-620.
Reflective Judgment and Enlarged Thinking Online.May Thorseth - 2008 - Ethics and Information Technology 10 (4):221-231.
Relating to Participants: How Close Do Biobanks and Donors Really Want to Be? [REVIEW]Mairi Levitt - 2011 - Health Care Analysis 19 (3):220-230.
Lab Work Goes Social, and Vice Versa: Strategising Public Engagement Processes: Commentary On: “What Happens in the Lab Does Not Stay in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory”.Brian Wynne - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):791-800.
Mathematics and its Publics: Texts, Contexts and Users.Jeff Evans & Anna Tsatsaroni - 2000 - Social Epistemology 14 (1):55-68.
Making Public Bioethics Sufficiently Public: The Legitimacy and Authority of Bioethics Commissions.Summer Johnson - 2007 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 17 (2):143-152.