Locating scientific citizenship: The institutional contexts and cultures of public engagement

Science Technology and Human Values

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 474-500

  Bickerstaff, Karen ^a   Lorenzoni, Irene ^b   Jones, Mavis ^c   Pidgeon, Nick ^d  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^c DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Institutional analysis; Public engagement; Royal Society; Science and society

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954968228     PISSN: 01622439     EISSN: 15528251     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0162243909345835     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Barry, A. 2000. Making the active scientific citizen. Paper presented at 4S/EASST Conference, Technoscience, Citizenship and Culture, University of Vienn, 28-30 September.
2. Blair, T. 2002. Science matters. http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1715.asp (accessed April 10).
3. Burgess, J., T. Anderson, A. Irwin, S. Joss, C. Marris, J. Petts, A. Stirling, T. Wakeford and B. Wynne. 2002. Some observations and proposals on the 2002-2003 Public Dialogue on possible commercialization of GM crops in the UK. For the Public Debate Steering Board, Meeting, 7 November.
4. Chair, Science in Society Committee. 2003. Private correspondence to Secretary of State for Health, 21 May.
5. Collins, H., and R. Evans. 2002. The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science 32(2):235-96.
6. Cooke, B., and U. Kothari. 2001. Participation: The new tyranny? London: Zed Books.
7. Council for Science and Technology. 2005. Policy through dialogue: Informing policies based on science and technology. http://www.cst.gov.uk/cst/reports/files/policy-through-dialogue/report.doc. (accessed January 9, 2009).
8. Darville, R. 1995. Literacy, experience, power. In Knowledge, experience and ruling relations: Studies in the social organization of knowledge, ed. M. Campbell and A. Manicom, 249-61. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
9. Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS). 2008. A vision for Science and Society: A consultation on developing a new strategy for the UK. London: The Stationary Office.
10. Department of Health (DoH). 2003. Genetics White Paper: Our inheritance, our future-realising the potential of genetics in the NHS. London: The Stationary Office.
11. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). 2005. Annex B. Response to the royal society and royal academy of engineering report, nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: The Stationary Office.
12. Einsiedel, E. 2007. Editorial: Of publics and science. Public Understanding of Science 16(1):5-6.
13. Elam, M., and M. Bertilsson. 2002. Consuming, engaging and confronting science: The emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship, STAGE, Science, Technology and Governance in Europe, Discussion Paper 1. http://www.stage-research.net/STAGE/downloads/StageDiscussPaper.pdf. (accessed January 9, 2009).
14. Frickel S., and K. Moore. 2006. Prospects and challenges for a new political sociology of science. In The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power, ed. S. Frickel and K. Moore, 3-34. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
15. Hagendijk, R., and A. Irwin. 2006. Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva 44(2):167-84.
16. HM Treasury/DTI/DfES 2004. Science and innovation investment framework 2004-2014. London: The Stationary Office.
17. Holmes, T., and I. Scoones. 2001. Participatory environmental policy processes: Experiences from north and south. In PLA notes 40: Deliberative democracy and citizen empowerment, ed. M. Pimbert and T. Wakeford, 76-8. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
18. Horlick-Jones, T., J. Walls, G. Rowe, N.F. Pidgeon, W. Poortinga, G. Murdock, and T. O'Riordan. 2007. The GM debate: Risk, politics and public deliberation. London: Routledge.
19. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (HLSCST). 2000. Third report: Science and society (session 1999-2000). London: The Stationary Office.
20. Hughes, EC 1971. The sociological eye; selected papers. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
21. Human Genetics Commission (HGC). 2003. Private correspondence to Royal Society, 10 May.
22. HGC. 2005. Profiling the newborn: A prospective gene technology? A report from a Joint Working Group of the Human Genetics Commission and the UK National Screening Committee. London: HGC.
23. Irwin, A. 1999. Science and citizenship. In Communicating science: Contexts and channels. Reader 2, ed. E. Scanlon, E. Whitelegg and S. Yates, 14-36. London: Routledge.
24. Irwin, A. 2001. Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10(1):1-18.
25. Irwin, A. 2006. The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the 'new' scientific governance. Social Studies of Science 36(2):299-320.
26. Irwin, A., and B. Wynne. eds. 1996. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Jasanoff, S. 2003a. Symposium: Breaking the waves in science studies. Social Studies of Science 33(3):389-400.
28. Jasanoff, S. 2003b. Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41(3):223-44.
29. Jasanoff, S. 2005. Designs on nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
30. Jones, M., J. Walls, and T. Horlick-Jones. 2006. Separated at birth? Consensus and contention in the UK agriculture and human biotechnology commissions. Science and Public Policy 33(10):729-44.
31. Kerr, A., S. Cunningham-Burley, and R. Tutton. 2007. Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science 37(3): 385-411.
32. Levidow, L. 2007. European public participation as risk governance: Enhancing democratic accountability for agribiotech. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 1(1):19-51.
33. Mayer, S. 2003. GM NATION? Engaging people in real debate? A GeneWatch UK report on the conduct of the UK's public debate on GM crops and food Buxton: GeneWatch. Insulate the priorities of the commissioning organization from wider scrutiny.
34. Meyer, J.W., and Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology 83: 340-363.
35. Miller, S. 2001. Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science 10(1):115-20.
36. Mosse, D. 2001. People's knowledge participation and patronage: Operations and representations in rural development. In Participation: The new tyranny? ed. B. Cooke and U. Kothari, 6-35. London: Zed Books.
37. Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology (POST). 2001. Postnote. Summary of post report 153 open channels: Public dialogue in science and technology. London: POST. http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn153.pdf. (accessed January 9, 2009).
38. Petts, J. 1995. Waste management strategy development: A case study of community involvement and consensus-building in Hampshire. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 38(4):519-36.
39. Petts, J. 2001. Evaluating the effectiveness of deliberative processes: Waste management case studies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44(2):207-26.
40. Petts, J., and C. Brooks. 2006. Expert conceptualisations of the role of lay knowledge in environmental decisionmaking: Challenges for deliberative democracy. Environment and Planning A 38(6):1045-59.
41. Phillips, J.B., and M. Ferguson-Smith. 2000. The BSE inquiry: Report, evidence and supporting papers of the inquiry into the emergence and identification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) and the action taken in response to it up to 20 March 1996. London: The Stationary Office.
42. Pidgeon, N., W. Poortinga, G. Rowe, T. Horlick-Jones, J. Walls, and T. O'Riordan. 2005. Using surveys in public participation processes for risk decision-making: The case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public debate. Risk Analysis 25(2):467-79.
43. Policy Ethics and Life Sciences Research Institute (PEALS). 2003. Royal society, science and society programme. PEALS collaboration report prepared for the Royal Society.
44. Rayner, S. 2003. Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making, Science and Public Policy 30(3):163-70.
45. Renn, O., T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann. 1995. Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
46. Rogers-Hayden, T., and N. Pidgeon. 2007. Moving engagement "upstream"? Nanotechnologies and the royal society and royal academy of engineering inquiry. Public Understanding of Science 16(3):346-64.
47. Rothstein, H. 2007. Talking shops or talking turkey? Institutionalising consumer representation in risk regulation. Science, Technology and Human Values 32(5): 582-607.
48. Rothstein, H.R. 2003. Neglected risk regulation: The institutional attenuation phenomenon. Health, Risk & Society 5(1):85-102.
49. Rowe, G., and L.J. Frewer. 2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values 25(1):3-29.
50. Royal, Society. 2003a. Royal society national forum for science 2003 (People's Science Summit): Genetic testing-Which way forward? London: Royal Society.
51. Royal, Society. 2003b. Science in society: Programme 2003. London: Royal Society.
52. Royal, Society. 2004. Science in society: Report 2004. London: Royal Society.
53. Royal, Society. 2006a. Science in society: The impact and legacy of the five year Kohn Foundation funded programme. London: Royal Society.
54. Royal, Society. 2006b. Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. London: Royal Society.
55. Royal, Society. 2008a. Royal Society's response to 'a vision for Science and Society: A consultation on developing a new strategy for the UK.' http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=31694. (accessed January 9, 2009).
56. Royal, Society. 2008b. Royal Society's response to a vision for Science and Society: A consultation on developing a new strategy for the UK.http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=0&id=8077 (accessed October 27, 2008).
57. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: Royal Society.
58. Royal Society/Wellcome Trust. 2003. Genetics and health-Visions of the future: Summary of a joint meeting held by the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society in February 2003. London: Royal Society. http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=11320. (accessed January 9, 2009).
59. Schuster, J.A., and A.B.H. Taylor. 1997. Blind trust: The gentlemanly origins of experimental science. Social Studies of Science 27(3):503-36.
60. Secretary of State for Health. 2003. Private correspondence to the Royal Society, 16 May.
61. Shapin, S. 1994. A social history of truth: Civility and science in 17th century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
62. Shapin, S. 1996. The scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
63. Shapin, S., and S. Schaffer. 1985. Leviathan and the air pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
64. Smith, D. 2001. Texts and the ontology of organizations and institutions. Culture and Organizations 7(2):159-98.
65. Stilgoe, J., J. Wilsdon, and B. Wynne. 2005. The public value of science: Or how to ensure that science really matters. London: Demos.
66. Vaughan, D. 1996. The challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
67. Wilsdon, J., and R. Willis. 2004. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream: A report by Demos, Green Alliance, Environment Agency and RSA. London: Demos.
68. Wynne, B. 2002. Symposium: Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism: Response to Collins and Evans (2002). Social Studies of Science 33(3):401-17.
69. Wynne, B. 2005. Risk as globalizing 'democratic' discourse? Framing subjects and citizens. In Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement, ed. M. Leach, I. Scoones and B. Wynne, 66-82. London: Zed Books.
70. Wynne, B. 2008. Elephants in the rooms where publics encounter "science"? A response to Darrin Durant, "Accounting for expertise: Wynne and the autonomy of the lay public." Public Understanding of Science 17(1):21-33.