Producing the post-fordist public: The political economy of public engagement with science

Science as Culture

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 273-301

  Thorpe, Charles ^a   Gregory, Jane ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Engagement; Immaterial labour; Nanotechnology; Participation; Post Fordism; Science communication

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650208180     PISSN: 09505431     EISSN: 14701189     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09505430903194504     Document Type: Article

References (112)

1. Adonis, A. and Mulgan, G. (1994) Back to Greece: the scope for direct democracy, Demos Quarterly, 3, pp. 1-28.
2. Andalo, D. (2008) Denham calls on universities to be more innovative, Education Guardian, 13 March. Available at: http://education.guardian.co.uk.
3. Anderson, B. (2006) Hope in/for nanotechnology: anticipatory governance and the spatialities of affect. Presentation at Workshop on Locating Emerging Technologies, November 9 2006, Cambridge University.
4. Anderson, B. (2007) Hope for nanotechnology: anticipatory knowledge and the governance of affect, Area, 39(2), pp. 156-165.
5. Bach, J. and Stark, D. (2004) Link, search, interact: the co-evolution of NGOs and interactive technology, Theory, Culture and Society, 21(3), pp. 101-117.
6. Bache, I. (2003) Governing through governance: education policy control under New Labour, Political Studies, 51(2), pp. 300-314.
7. Barnett, J., Carr, A. and Clift, R. (2006) Going public: trust and public understandings of nanotechnology, in: G. Hunt and M. Mehta (Eds) Nanotechnology: Risk, Ethics and the Law (London: Earthscan).
8. Bauchspies, W. K., Croissant, J. and Restivo, S. (2006) Science, Technology and Society: A Sociological Approach (Malden, MA: Blackwell).
9. Bauer, M. (Ed) (1995) Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power, Information Technology, and Biotechnology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
10. Bauer, M. W. and Gaskell, G. (2002) Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
11. Bauer, M. W. and Gregory, J. (2007) From journalism to corporate communication in post-war Britain, in: M. Bauer and M. Bucchi (Eds) Journalism, Science, and Society (New York: Routledge).
12. Bauman, Z. (2000) Liquid Modernity (Cambridge: Polity).
13. Beck, U. (1995) The Politics of the Risk Society (Cambridge: Polity).
14. Besley, J. C. and McComas, K. A. (2005) Framing justice: using the concept of procedural justice to advance political communication research, Communication Theory, 4, pp. 414-436.
15. Best, S. and Kellner, D. (2001) The Postmodern Adventure: Science, Technology, and Cultural Studies at the Third Millennium (New York: The Guilford Press).
16. Bowring, F. (2004) From the mass worker to the multitude: a theoretical contextualisation of Hardt and Negri's Empire, Capital and Class, 83(Summer), pp. 101-132.
17. Brazil, R. (2008) Measuring research output, NESTA Connect: Higher Education, January 17. Available at: http://blogs.nesta.org.uk/connect/higher_education/index.html.
18. Brown, N., Rappert, B. and Webster, A. (Eds) (2000) Contested Futures (Aldershot: Ashgate).
19. Brown, P., Hesketh, A. and Williams, S. (2003) Employability in the knowledge-driven economy, Journal of Education and Work, 16(2), pp. 107-126.
20. Campbell, S. and Townsend, E. (2003) Flaws undermine results of UK biotech debate. Letter to editor, Nature, 425, p. 559.
21. Casey, C. (1995) Work, Self and Society: After Industrialism (London: Sage).
22. Casey, C. (1999) 'Come, join our family': discipline and integration in corporate organizational culture, Human Relations, 52(2), pp. 155-178.
23. Castells, M. (2000) Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society, British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), pp. 5-24.
24. Chandler, D. (2001) Active citizens and the therapeutic state: the role of democratic participation in local government reform, Policy and Politics, 29(1), pp. 3-14.
25. Chesters, G. and Welsh, I. (2006) Complexity and Social Movements: Multitudes on the Edge of Chaos (London: Routledge).
26. Clarke, J. (2005) New Labour's citizens: activated, empowered, responsibilized, abandoned? Critical Social Policy, 25(4), pp. 447-463.
27. Cook, D. (2002) Consultation for a change? Engaging users and communities in the policy process, Social Policy and Administration, 36(5), pp. 516-531.
28. Crichton, M. (2003) Prey (New York: Avon Books).
29. Crowther, J. (2004) 'In and against' lifelong learning: flexibility and the corrosion of character, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 23(2), pp. 125-136.
30. Dinham, A. (2005) Empowered or over-powered? The real experiences of local participation in the UK's New Deal for Communities, Community Development Journal, 40(3), pp. 301-312.
31. DIUS (2008a) Innovation Nation (London: HMSO).
32. DIUS (2008b) A Vision for Science and Society: A Consultation on Developing a New Strategy for the UK (London: HMSO).
33. Dornan, C. (1990) Some problems in conceptualizing the issue of 'science and the media', Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7, pp. 48-71.
34. Dowling, E. (2007) Producing the dining experience: measure, subjectivity and the affective worker, Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization, 7(1), pp. 117-132.
35. Drexler, E. (1987) Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology (New York: Anchor).
36. DTI (2003) GM Nation? The Findings of the Public Debate (London: HMSO).
37. DTI (2007) Technology Strategy. Available at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/innovation/technologystrategy/tsb/index_print.html (accessed 9 May 2007).
38. Dyer-Witheford, N. (1999) Cyber-Marx: Cycles and Circuits of Struggle in High-Technology Capitalism (Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press).
39. Education Guardian (2008) Science White Paper to drive innovation, March 12. Available at: http://education.guardian.co.uk.
40. Elam, M. and Bertilsson, M. (2003) Consuming, engaging and confronting science: the emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship, European Journal of Social Theory, 6(2), pp. 233-251.
41. EPSRC (2006) Strategic Plan 2006. Towards a Shared Vision of Tomorrow's Challenges (Swindon: Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council).
42. ETC Group (2005) NanoGeoPolitics: ETC Group Surveys the Political Landscape, ETC Group Special Report-Communique No. 89.
43. Etzkowitz, H. (1989) Entrepreneurial science in the academy: a case of the transformation of norms, Social Problems, 36(1), pp. 14-29.
44. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A. and Healey, P. (Eds) (1998) Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academia (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press).
45. Fantasia, R., Clawson, D. and Graham, G. (1988) A critical view of worker participation in American industry, Work and Occupations, 15(4), pp. 468-488.
46. Finlayson, A. (2003) Making sense of New Labour (London: Lawrence and Wishart).
47. Fisher, E., Mitcham, C. and Mahajan, R. L. (2006) Midstream modulation of technology: governance from within, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 26(6), pp. 485-496.
48. Fleming, P. and Spicer, A. (2003) Working at a cynical distance: implications for power, subjectivity and resistance, Organization, 10(1), pp. 157-179.
49. Gaskell, G. (2004) Science, society and policy: the British debate over GM agriculture, Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 15(3), pp. 241-245.
50. Giddens, A. (1998) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy (Cambridge: Polity Press).
51. Gregory, J., Agar, J., Lock, S. J. and Harries, S. (2007) Public engagement in the private sector: a new form of PR? in: M. Bauer and M. Bucchi (Eds) Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication between News and Public Relations, pp. 203-214 (London: Routledge).
52. Gregory, J. and Lock, S. J. (2008) The evolution of 'public understanding of science' in the UK, Sociology Compass, 2(4), pp. 1252-1265.
53. Gregory, J. and Miller, S. (1996) Science in Public: Communication, Culture & Credibility (New York: Basic Books).
54. Gummett, P. (1991) The evolution of science and technology policy: a UK perspective, Science and Public Policy, 18(1), pp. 31-37.
55. Gustafsson, U. and Driver, S. (2005) Parents, power and public participation: Sure Start, an experiment in New Labour governance, Social Policy and Administration, 39(5), pp. 528-543.
56. Habermas, J. (1971) Technology and science as 'ideology', in: J. Habermas (Ed) Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science, and Politics, pp. 81-122 (Boston: Beacon Press).
57. Habermas, J. (1992) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (Cambridge: Polity Press).
58. Hampson, I., Ewer, P. and Smith, M. (1994) Post-Fordism and workplace change: towards a critical research agenda, Journal of Industrial Relations, 36, pp. 231-257.
59. Hardt, M. and Negri, A. (2000) Empire (Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press).
60. Hardt, M. and Negri, A. (2005) Multitude: War and Democracy in an Age of Empire (London: Hamish Hamilton).
61. Hedgecoe, A. and Martin, P. (2003) The drugs don't work: expectations and the shaping of pharmacogenetics, Social Studies of Science, 33(3), pp. 327-364.
62. HM Treasury (2006) Pre-Budget Report (London: HMSO).
63. HM Treasury, DTI and DfES (2004) Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014 (London: HMSO).
64. Hochschild, A. (2003) The Managed Heart: The Commercialization of Human Feeling (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
65. Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., Murdock, G. and O'Riordan, T. (2007) The GM Debate: Risk, Politics, and Public Engagement (London: Routledge).
66. House of Lords (2000) Science and Society (London: HMSO), [see also paper 38-1, Evidence].
67. Hughes, D. (2007) Back to basics for technology leadership. Blog posted October 10 2007, Exquisite Life: Between Research, Politics, Business, and Economics. Available at: http://researchspace.typepad.com/exquisite_life/technology_strategy_board/index.html.
68. Irwin, A. (2006) The politics of talk: coming to terms with the 'new' scientific governance, Social Studies of Science, 36(2), pp. 299-320.
69. Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (1996) Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
70. Jessop, B. (2000) The crisis of the national spatio-temporal fix and the tendential ecological dominance of globalizing capitalism, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(2), pp. 323-360.
71. Jessop, B. (2002) The Future of the Capitalist State (Cambridge: Polity Press).
72. Joly, P.-B. and Kaufmann, A. (2008) Lost in translation? The need for 'upstream engagement' with nanotechnology on trial, Science as Culture, 17(3), pp. 225-247.
73. Jotterand, F. (2006) The politicization of science and technology: its implications for nanotechnology, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 24(4), pp. 658-666.
74. Jurdant, B. (1969) Vulgarisation scientifique et ideologie, Communications, 14, pp. 150-161.
75. Jurdant, B. (1974) L'idéologie de la vulgarisation scientifique, Phd Thesis, Université Louis Pasteur de Strasbourg, France.
76. Kearnes, M., Macnaughten, P. and Wilsdon, J. (2006) Governing at the Nanoscale: People, Policies and Emerging Technologies (London: Demos).
77. Kenney, M. and Florida, R. (1988) Beyond mass production: production and the labor process in Japan, Politics and Society, 16, pp. 121-158.
78. Kleinman, D. L. and Vallas, S. P. (2001) Science, capitalism and the rise of the 'knowledge worker': the changing structure of knowledge production in the United States, Theory and Society, 30(4), pp. 451-492.
79. Kunda, G. (1992) Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation (Philadelphia: Temple University Press).
80. Lazzarato, M. (1996) Immaterial labor, in: P. Virno and M. Hardt (Eds) Radical Thought in Italy, pp. 132-146 (Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota University Press).
81. Leadbeater, C. and Mulgan, G. (1994) Lean democracy and the leadership vacuum, Demos Quarterly, 3, pp. 45-82.
82. Lee, C. (2007) The professionalization of public participation. Paper presented at American Sociological Association Annual Meeting. August 2007, New York City.
83. Levidow, L. (2007) Democratising technology choices? European public participation in agbiotech assessments, IIED Gatekeeper Series No. 135, December 2007, International Institute for Environment and Development. Available at: http://www.iied.org/NR/agbioliv/gatekeepers.
84. Lezuan, J. and Soneryd, L. (2007) Consulting citizens: technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics, Public Understanding of Science, 16, pp. 279-297.
85. Local Government Act, 2000. Available at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/20000022.htm.
86. Lock, S. J. (2009) Lost in translations: discourses, boundaries and legitimacy in the public understanding of science in the UK, PhD Thesis, University of London.
87. Marinetto, M. (2003) Who wants to be an active citizen? The politics and practice of community involvement, Sociology, 37(1), pp. 103-120.
88. Mathews, J. (1989) Age of Democracy: The Politics of Post-Fordism (New York: Oxford University Press).
89. Moriarty, P. (2008) Reclaiming academia from post-academia, Nature Nanotechnology, 3(February), pp. 60-62.
90. NESTA (2006) The Innovation Gap: Why Policy Needs to Reflect the Reality of Innovation in the UK, NESTA Research Report (London: NESTA).
91. Office of Science and Innovation (2006) The Government's Approach to Public Dialogue on Science and Technology.
92. Pestre, D. (2008) Challenges for the democratic management of technoscience: governance, participation and the political today, Science as Culture, 17(2), pp. 101-119.
93. Physics World (2004) The future of nanotechnology, August 10.
94. Piore, M. and Sabel, C. (1984) The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity (New York: Basic Books).
95. Pratchett, L. (1999) New fashions in public participation: towards greater democracy? Parliamentary Affairs, 52(4), pp. 616-633.
96. Rajan, K. S. (2006) Biocapital: The Constitution of Postgenomic Life (Durham, NC: Duke University Press).
97. Rikowski, G. (2002) Education, capital, and the transhuman, in: D. Hill, P. McLaren, M. Cole and G. Rikowski (Eds) Marxism Against Postmodernism in Educational Theory, pp. 111-143 (Oxford: Lexington Books).
98. Rowe, R. and Shepherd, M. (2002) Public participation in the NHS: no closer to citizen control? Social Policy and Administration, 36(3), pp. 275-290.
99. Sciencewise (2004) Guidance Notes for Applicants (London: DTI/OST).
100. Selin, C. (2007) Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology, Science, Technology and Human Values, 32(2), pp. 196-220.
101. Stilgoe, J. (2007) Nanodialogues: Experiments in Public Engagement with Science (London: Demos).
102. Terranova, T. (2000) Free labor: producing culture for the digital economy, Social Text, 18(2), pp. 33-58.
103. Tight, M. (1998) Lifelong learning: opportunity or compulsion? British Journal of Educational Studies, 46(3), pp. 251-263.
104. Virno, P. (2004) A Grammar of the Multitude (New York/Boston: Semiotext(e)/MIT Press).
105. Vogt, T., Baird, D. and Robinson, C. (2007) Opportunities in the 'post-academic' world, Nature Nanotechnology, 2, pp. 329-332.
106. Welsh, I., Evans, R. and Plows, A. (2007) Human rights and genomics: science, genomics and social movements at the 2004 London Social Forum, New Genetics and Society, 26(2), pp. 1-13.
107. Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream (London: Demos).
108. Wilsdon, J., Wynne, B. and Stilgoe, J. (2005) The Public Value of Science (London: Demos).
109. Wynne, B. (1992) Public understanding of science research: new horizons or hall of mirrors? Public Understanding of Science, 1, pp. 37-43.
110. Wynne, B. (1996) Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and public uptake of science, in: A. Irwin and B. Wynne (Eds) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, pp. 19-46 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
111. Wynne, B. (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science-hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics, 9, pp. 211-220.
112. Ziman, J. (2002) Real Science: What it is, and What it Means (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).