‘Younger People Have Like More of an Imagination, No Offence’: Participant Perspectives on Public Engagement

International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 43-61

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

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

^b KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Expertise; Participation; Public engagement; Robotics

Indexed keywords

EID: 84870592685     PISSN: 21548455     EISSN: 21548463     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/21548455.2011.628503     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Abels, G., 2007. Citizen involvement in public policy-making: Does it improve democratic legitimacy and accountability? The case of pTA. Interdisciplinary Information Sciences, 13 (1): 103–116.
2. Abelson, J., Forest, P. G., Eyles, J., Casebeer, A., Martin, E., and Mackean, G., 2007. Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: Results from a Canadian comparative study. Social Science and Medicine, 64 (10): 2115–2128.
3. Alsop, S., and Watts, M., 1997. Sources from a Somerset village: A model for informal learning and radiation and radioactivity. Science Education, 81 (6): 633–650.
4. Bauer, M., and Jensen, P., 2011. The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20 (1): 3–11.
5. Bell, P., 2009. Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
6. BIS. (2011). Public engagement for science and society–A conversational tool. London: Science for All Expert Group. Retrieved June 16, 2011, from http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/all/2010/09/23/public-engagement-for-science-and-society-a-conversational-tool/
7. Braun, K., and Schultz, S., 2010. ‘…a certain amount of engineering involved’: Constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements. Public Understanding of Science, 19 (4): 403–419.
8. British Science Association. (2011). Public engagement for science and society–A conversational tool. London: British Science Association. Retrieved June 16, 2011, from http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/web/ScienceinSociety/scienceforall/ConversationalTool.htm
9. Burall, S., & Shahrokh, T. (2010). What the public say: Public engagement in national decision-making. London: Sciencewise-ERC. Retrieved June 16, 2011, from http://www.involve.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/What-the-public-say-report-FINAL-v4.pdf
10. 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 (2): 145–162.
11. Burchell, K., Franklin, S., and Holden, K., 2009. Public culture as professional science: Final report of the ScoPE Project (Scientists on public engagement: From communication to deliberation?), London: BIOS (Centre for the Study of Bioscience, Biomedicine, Biotechnology and Society). Retrieved November 25, 2010, from http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/BIOS/scope/pdf/scope_final_report.pdf
12. Burningham, K., Barnett, J., Carr, A., Clift, R., and 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 (1): 23–43.
13. Burri, R. V., 2009. Coping with uncertainty: Assessing nanotechnologies in a citizen panel in Switzerland. Public Understanding of Science, 18 (5): 498–511.
14. Cherryman, S. J., King, S., Hawkes, F. R., Dinsdale, R., and Hawkes, D. L., 2008. An exploratory study of public opinions on the use of hydrogen energy in Wales. Public Understanding of Science, 17 (3): 397–410.
15. Classens, M., 2008. “ European trends in science communication ”. In Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices, Edited by: Cheng, D., Claessens, M., Gascoigne, T., Metcalfe, J., Schiele, B., and Shi, S., 27–38. New York: PCST/Springer.
16. Collins, H., and Evans, R., 2007. Rethinking expertise, Chicago: University of Chicago.
17. Corbyn, Z. (2008). Nottingham raises eyebrows over definition of ‘public engagement’. Times Higher Education. Retrieved November 25, 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=403234
18. Cunningham-Burley, S., and Kerr, A., 1999. Defining the ‘social’: Towards an understanding of scientific and medical discourses on the social aspects of the new human genetics. Sociology of Health and Illness, 21 (5): 647–668.
19. Davies, G., 2006. Mapping deliberation: Calculation, articulation and intervention in the politics of organ transplantation. Economy and Society, 35 (2): 232–258.
20. Davies, S. R., 2008. Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29 (4): 413–434.
21. Durant, D., 2008. Accounting for expertise: Wynne and the autonomy of the lay public actor. Public Understanding of Science, 17 (5): 5–20.
22. European Commission. 2010. Science and technology report. Special Eurobarometer, Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved November 25, 2010, from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_340_en.pdf
23. Falk, J. H., Moussouri, T., and Coulson, D., 1998. The effect of visitors’ agendas on museum learning. Curator, 41 (2): 107–120.
24. Falk, J. H., Storksdieck, M., and Dierking, L. D., 2007. Investigating public science interest and understanding: Evidence for the importance of free-choice learning. Public Understanding of Science, 16 (4): 455–469.
25. Featherstone, H., Wilkinson, C., and Bultitude, K., 2009. Public Engagement Map: Report to the Science for All Expert Group, Bristol: University of the West of England. Retrieved November 25, 2010, from http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/all/2010/02/09/science-for-all-report-and-supporting-documents/
26. Felt, U., and Fochler, M., 2008. The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation in science and technology. Science and Public Policy, 35 (7): 489–499.
27. Gutwill, J. P., and Allen, S., 2009. Facilitating family group inquiry at science museum exhibits. Science Education, 94 (4): 710–742.
28. Irwin, A. (2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 1–18.
29. Jensen, P., Rouquier, J., Kreimer, P., and Croissant, Y., 2008. Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy, 35 (7): 527–541.
30. Kasperson, R. E., 2006. Rerouting the stakeholder express. Global Environmental Change, 16 (4): 320–322.
31. Kerr, A., 2003. Rights and responsibilities in the new genetics era. Critical Social Policy, 23 (2): 208–226.
32. Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S., and Amos, A., 1998. The new genetics and health: Mobilizing lay expertise. Public Understanding of Science, 7 (1): 41–60.
33. Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S., and Tutton, R., 2007. Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science, 37 (3): 385–411.
34. Lehr, J. L., McCallie, E., Davies, S. R., Caron, B. R., Gammon, B., and Duensing, S., 2007. The value of “dialogue events” as sites of learning: An exploration of research and evaluation frameworks. International Journal of Science Education, 29 (12): 1467–1487.
35. MacLean, S., and Burgess, M. M., 2010. In the public interest: Assessing expert and stakeholder influence in public deliberation about biobanks. Public Understanding of Science, 19 (4): 486–496.
36. Marres, N. S. (2005). No issue, no public: Democratic deficits after the displacement of politics. Amsterdam: Faculty of Humanities, University of Amsterdam, 1–175. Retrieved December 12, 2010, from http://dare.uva.nl/document/17061
37. Martín-Sempere, M., Garzón-García, B., and Rey-Rocha, K., 2008. Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science, 17 (3): 349–367.
38. Michael, M., 2009. Publics performing publics: Of PiGs, PiPs and politics. Public Understanding of Science, 18 (5): 617–631.
39. Michael, M., and Brown, N., 2005. Scientific citizenships: Self-representations of xenotransplantation's publics. Science as Culture, 14 (1): 39–57.
40. Pearson, G., 2001. The participation of scientists in public understanding of science activities: The policy and practice of the U.K. Research Councils. Public Understanding of Science, 10 (1): 121–137.
41. Poliakoff, E., and Webb, T. L., 2007. What factors predict scientists intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?. Science Communication, 29 (2): 242–263.
42. Pouliot, C., 2011. Post-secondary students’ relationship to people they consider to be scientific experts. Research in Science Education, 41 (2): 225–243.
43. Powell, M., and Colin, M., 2009. Participatory paradoxes: Facilitating citizen engagement in science and technology from the top-down?. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 29 (4): 325–342.
44. Priest, S. H., 2009. “ Reinterpreting the audiences for media messages about science ”. In Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media, Edited by: Holliman, R., Whitelegg, E., Scanlon, E., Smidt, S., and Thomas, J., 223–236. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45. Rennie, L. J., and Williams, G. F., 2006. Adults learning about science in free-choice settings. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (8): 871–893.
46. Ritchie, J., and Spencer, L., 1994. “ Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research ”. In Analysing qualitative data, Edited by: Bryman, A., and Burgess, R. G., 173–194. London: Routledge.
47. Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Poortinga, W., and Pidgeon, N. F., 2008. Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: Reliability, validity and limitations. Public Understanding of Science, 17 (4): 419–441.
48. Royal Society. (2006). Science communication: Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. London: Royal Society. Retrieved November 25, 2010, from http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=3180
49. Scheufele, D., and Lewenstein, B., 2005. The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7 (6): 659–667.
50. Schibeci, R., and Harwood, J., 2007. Stimulating authentic community involvement in biotechnology policy in Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 16 (2): 245–255.
51. Stein, J. A. (2003). Public understanding of science in the United Kingdom: A leading country but to what destination? In U. Felt (Ed.), OPUS: Optimising the public understanding of science (pp. 1–21). Brussels: DG Research. Retrieved January 14, 2011, from http://www.univie.ac.at/virusss/OPUSReport/
52. Stirling, A., 2005. “ Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology ”. In Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement, Edited by: Leach, M., Scoones, I., and Wynne, B., 218–231. London: Zed Books.
53. Tlili, A., Cribb, A., and Gewirtz, S., 2006. What becomes of science in a science centre? Reconfiguring science for public consumption. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 28 (2): 203–228.
54. Tlili, A., and Dawson, E., 2010. Mediating science and society in the EU and UK: From information-transmission to deliberative democracy?. Minerva, 48 (4): 429–461.
55. Trench, B., 2008. “ Towards an analytical framework of science communication models ”. In Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices, Edited by: Cheng, D., Claessens, M., Gascoigne, T., Metcalfe, J., Schiele, B., and Shi, S., 119–135. New York: PCST/Springer.
56. Wilkinson, C., Bultitude, K., & Dawson, E. (2011). ‘Oh Yes, Robots! People Like Robots; the Robot People Should do Something’: Perspectives and prospects in public engagement with robotics. Science Communication, 33(3), 367–397.