"Oh yes, robots! people like robots; the robot people should do something": Perspectives and prospects in public engagement with robotics

Science Communication

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 367-397

  Wilkinson, Clare ^a   Bultitude, Karen ^a   Dawson, Emily ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

^b KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

engagement; practitioners; public; robotics; scientists

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053577628     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547010389818     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Bara. (2007). Results for the annual survey of UK robot installations for 2007. British automation and robot association. Coventry, England: University of Warwick. Retrieved fromhttp://www.bara.org.uk/info/statistics/Industrial_Robot_Facts_2007.pdf.
2. Bell, L. (2008). Engaging the public in technology policy: A new role for science museums. Science Communication, 29, 386-398.
3. Breazeal, C., Brooks, A., Gray, J., Hancher, M., McBean, J., Stiehl, D., & Strickon, J. (2003). Interactive robot theatre. Communications of the ACM, 46, 76-84.
4. Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57-76). Abingdon, England: Routledge.
5. Burchell, K. (2007). Empiricist selves and contingent "others": The performative function of the discourse of scientists working in conditions of controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 145-162.
6. Burchell, K., Franklin, S., & Holden, K. (2009). Public culture as professional science: Final report of the ScoPE Project (Scientists on Public Engagement: From Communication to Deliberation?). London, England: Centre for the Study of Bioscience, Biomedicine, Biotechnology and Society. Retrieved fromhttp://www.2.lse.ac.uk/BIOS/research/scope/pdf/scope_final_report.pdf.
7. Burningham, K., Barnett, J., Carr, A., Clift, R., & Wehrmeyer, W. (2007). Industrial constructions of publics and public knowledge: A qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 23-43.
8. Chilvers, J. (2008). Deliberating competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practices. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33, 421-451.
9. Classens, M. (2008). European trends in science communication. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 27-38). New York, NY: Springer.
10. Coffey, A., Renold, E., Dicks, B., Soyinka, B., & Mason, B. (2006). Hypermedia ethnography in educational settings: Possibilities and challenges. Ethnnography and Education, 1, 15-30.
11. Cook, G., Pieri, E., & Robbins, P.T. (2004). The scientists think and the public feels: Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse & Society, 15, 433-449.
12. Corbyn, Z. (2008). Nottingham raises eyebrows over definition of "public engagement." Times Higher Education. Retrieved fromhttp://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=403234.
13. Davies, S.R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29, 413-434.
14. Davies, S.R., McCallie, E., Simonsson, E., Lehr, J.L., & Duensing, S. (2009). Discussing dialogue: Perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 338-353.
15. Epstein, S. (1996). Impure science, AIDS, activism and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.
16. Felt, U., & Fochler, M. (2008). The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation. Science and Public Policy, 35, 489-499.
17. Felt, U., & Wynne, B. (2007). Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously: Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research, European Commission. Brussels, Belgium: Directorate General for Research Science, Economy and Society. Retrieved fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/european-knowledge-society_en.pdf.
18. Hagendijk, R., & Irwin, A. (2006). Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minevra, 44, 167-184.
19. Healey, P. (2004). Scientific connoisseurs and other intermediaries: Mavens, pundits, and critics. Swindon, England: ESRC. Retrieved fromhttp://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/about/CI/CP/Social_Sciences/issue59/mavens.aspx.
20. Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J. (2002). Analysing interaction: Video, ethnography and situated conduct. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitative research in action (pp. 99-121). London, England: Sage.
21. Holliman, R., & Jensen, E. (2009). (In)authentic sciences and (im)partial publics: (Re) constructing the science outreach and public engagement agenda. In R. Holliman, E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, S. Smidt, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media (pp. 35-52). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
22. Horlick-Jones, T., Rowe, G., & Walls, J. (2007). Citizen engagement processes as information systems: The role of knowledge and the concept of translation quality. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 259-278.
23. Horst, M. (2008). In search of dialogue: Staging science communication in consensus conferences. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi, (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 259-274). New York, NY: Springer.
24. International Federation of Robotics. (2009). World Robotics 2009 Service Robots (Executive Summary). Frankfurt, Germany: IFR Statistical Department. Retrieved fromhttp://www.worldrobotics.org/index.php.
25. Irwin, A. (2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 1-18.
26. Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the "new" scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36, 299-320.
27. Irwin, A. (2009). Moving forwards or in circles? Science communication and scientific governance in an age of innovation. In R. Holliman, E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, S. Smidt, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for public engagement and popular media (pp. 3-17). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
28. Irwin, A., & Michael, M. (2003). Science, social theory and public knowledge. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
29. Jensen, P., Rouquier, J., Kreimer, P., & Croissant, Y. (2008). Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy, 35, 527-541.
30. Kasperson, R.E. (2006). Rerouting the stakeholder express. Global Environmental Change, 16, 320-322.
31. Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S., & Tutton, R. (2007). Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science, 37, 385-411.
32. McCallie, E., Bell, L., Lohwater, T., Falk, J.H., Lehr, J.L., Lewenstein,. Wiehe, B. (2009). Many experts, many audiences: Public engagement with science and informal science education (A CAISE Enquiry Group Report). Washington, DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE). Retrieved fromhttp://caise.insci.org/uploads/docs/public_engagement_with_science.pdf.
33. Mori. (2000). The role of scientists in public debate. London, England: Wellcome Trust. Retrieved fromhttp://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_peda/documents/web_document/wtd003425.pdf.
34. Pearson, G., Pringle, S.M., & Thomas, J.N. (1997). Scientists and the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 6, 279-289.
35. Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T.L. (2007). What factors predict scientists' intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29, 242-263.
36. Powell, M., & Colin, M. (2009). Participatory paradoxes: Facilitating citizen engagement in science and technology from the top-down? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 29, 325-342.
37. Rcuk. (2009). What is public engagement? Retrieved fromhttp://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/scisoc/peupdate.pdf.
38. Riise, J. (2008). Bringing science to the public. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 301-309). New York, NY: Springer.
39. Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analysing qualitative data (pp. 173-194). London, England: Routledge.
40. Royal Society. (2006). Science communication: Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. London, England: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=3180.
41. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L.J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25, 3-29.
42. Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N.F. (2008). Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: Reliability, validity and limitations. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 419-441.
43. Rowe, G., Marsh, R., & Frewer, L.J. (2004). Evaluation of a deliberative conference. Science, Technology & Human Values, 29, 88-121.
44. Schäfer, M.S. (2009). From public understanding to public engagement: An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Science Communication, 30, 475-505.
45. Sullivan, F.R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 373-394.
46. Treise, D., & Weigold, M.F. (2002). Advancing science communication: A survey of science communicators. Science Communication, 23, 310-322.
47. Trench, B. (2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 119-135). New York, NY: Springer.
48. Trevelyan, J. (1999). Redefining robotics for the new millennium. International Journal of Robotics Research, 18, 1211-1223.
49. TwoCan Associates. (2009). An evaluation of the process and impact of patient and public involvement in the advisory groups of the UK clinical research collaboration (Final Report). London, England: UK Clinical Research Collaboration. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ukcrc.org/index.aspx?o=1541.
50. Ward, V., Howdle, P., & Hamer, S. (2008). You and your body: A case study of bioscience communication at the University of Leeds. Science Communication, 30, 177-208.
51. Wilkinson, C., Bultitude, K., & Dawson, E. (IN PRESS). "Younger people have like more of an imagination, no offence": Public perspectives on public engagement. Public Understanding of Science.
52. Wilsdon, J., & Willis, J. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London, England: Demos. Retrieved fromhttp://www.demos.co.uk/files/Seethroughsciencefinal.pdf?1240939425.
53. Wynne, B. (1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay divide. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity (pp. 44-83). London, England: Sage.
54. Young, N., & Matthews, R. (2007). Experts understanding of the public: Knowledge control in a risk controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 123-144.