Search

Recent scientific assessments of climate change have shifted towards evaluating solutions for removing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CDR). This paper reports a participation experiment in which we involved an interdisciplinary group of researchers in mapping issues relating to two CDR approaches: afforestation and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). We describe the responses of individual researchers when presented with visualisations aggregated from posts about afforestation and BECCS on the platform Twitter. We then compare the researchers' responses with a qualitative analysis of a subset of the Twitter data. The analysis highlights challenges the researchers experienced in identifying issues and relating these visualisations to their own research on afforestation and BECCS. We discuss the prospects for bringing experimental approaches to mapping issues, publics and participation into closer relation with science and technology assessments. The paper concludes with reflections on the value of qualitative traditions of STS research for digital controversy analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past few decades, significant advances have been made in public engagement with, and the democratization of, science and technology. Despite notable successes, such developments have often struggled to enhance public trust, avert crises of expertise and democracy, and build more socially responsive and responsible science and innovation. A central reason for this is that mainstream approaches to public engagement harbor what we call "residual realist" assumptions about participation and publics. Recent coproductionist accounts in science and technology studies (STS) offer an alternative way of seeing participation as coproduced, relational, diverse, and emergent but have been somewhat reluctant to articulate what this means in practice. In this paper, we make this move by setting out a new framework of interrelating paths and associated criteria for remaking public participation with science and democracy in more experimental, reflexive, anticipatory, and responsible ways. This framework comprises four paths to: forge reflexive participatory practices that attend to their framings, emergence, uncertainties, and effects; ecologize participation through attending to the interrelations between diverse public engagements in wider systems; catalyze practices of anticipatory reflection to bring about responsible democratic innovations ; and reconstitute participation as constitutive of (not separate from) systems of technoscience and democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper synthesizes recent insights from geography, science and technology studies and related disciplines concerning organizations and organizational learning at the science-policy interface. The paper argues that organizations do not exist and evolve in isolation, but are co-produced through networked connections to other spaces, bodies and practices. Furthermore, organizations should not be studied as stable entities, but are constantly in-the-making. This co-productionist perspective on organizations and organizing has implications for how geographers theorize, study and intervene in organizations at the science-policy interface with respect to encouraging learning and change and in the roles we adopt within and around such organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we develop new insights on science governance at a time when an emphasis on public engagement in responding to questions of trust in science is giving way to a more systemic and networked perspective. In a meta-analysis across seventeen UK public dialogue processes we identify five spheres of public concern about the governance of science and technology relating to: the purposes of science; trust; inclusion; speed and direction of innovation; and equity. Forty in-depth interviews with senior UK sciencepolicy actors reveal highly partial institutional responses to these concerns and help explain the underlying processes that close down, and at times open up, reflection and response on public values. Finally, we consider the implications of this analysis for the future of science governance, prospects for more anticipatory, reflexive, and inclusive forms of governing, and the roles for critical social science inquiry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article contributes to a more reflexive mode of research on public engagement with science-related issues through presenting an in-depth qualitative study of the actors that mediate science-society interactions, their roles and relationships, and the nature of learning and reflexivity in relation to public dialogue. A mapping framework is developed to describe the roles and relations of actors mediating public dialogue on science and technology in Britain. Learning within public dialogue networks is shown to be instrumental only, crowding out potentials for reflexive and relational learning. This calls for renewed critical social science research alongside more deliberately reflexive learning relating to participatory governance of science and technology that is situated, interactive, public, and anticipatory. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Building on previous studies of participatory learning amongst individuals within discrete participation processes, the authors examine organisationally situated processes of learning related to public participation in science and environmental governance. Qualitative analysis of documents and semistructured interviews is used to explore frames of participation, publics, and the issue of climate change, both transforming and stable. This illuminates trends of learning in the context of the organisational network around the UK Government-funded body Sciencewise and related organisations, from 2000 to 2010. It is argued that formal organisational learning mechanisms foster instrumental learning, precluding reflective and relational learning which could potentially transform organisational assumptions and routines around participation. However, informal social networks have promoted transformative social learning and reflexivity at particular moments during the decade. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Amid increasing interest in participatory forms of environmental appraisal and decision making, the actors shaping these new governance spaces remain understudied. This paper seeks to refocus accounts of public engagement in science onto these participatory appraisal experts, or 'experts of community', through drawing on in-depth empirical research that followed them through networks building up around participatory appraisal practice in the UK environmental-risk domain. A mapping of the general nature and character of this emerging epistemic community provides the context within which to analyse how it has evolved and has begun to influence policy processes in the area of radioactive waste. Prospects for studying networks of public engagement experts at the science - policy interface and wider implications for deliberative democracy under uncertainty are explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper develops a critical perspective on the 'new' governance of science and the environment which is increasingly evident in practical attempts to build more constructive relations between science and democracy through hybrid 'analytic-deliberative' processes. The focus is on recent institutional and participatory experiments in the governance of nuclear waste, specifically the work of the UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management and the trialling of a novel participatory, multicriteria, options appraisal tool called Deliberative Mapping undertaken by the authors as part of this process. Drawing on these attempts to build relations and make connections between citizens, specialists, stakeholders and policy makers, radioactive wastes, and possible courses of action for their long-term management, the methodological performance of analytic - deliberative practices and the contextual influences that frame and govern them is evaluated. The paper demonstrates powerful framing effects operated at the level of specific participatory practices, procedural politics surrounding the design of 'new' governance institutions, and institutional behaviour linked to wider politics of environmental risk and energy futures which narrowed down and marginalised particular discourses, knowledges, meanings, and forms of expression. Unless these often tacit power relations are acknowledged, accounted for, and exposed by all involved, but especially vested interests, analytic-deliberative institutions may well undermine public trust, credibility, and legitimacy rather than promote these democratic virtues as is widely claimed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The "participatory turn" cutting across technical approaches for appraising environment, risk, science, and technology has been accompanied by intense debates over the desired nature, extent, and quality of public engagement in science. Burgeoning work evaluating the effectiveness of such processes and the social study of science in society more generally is notable, however, for lacking systematic understanding of the very actors shaping these new forms of science- society interaction. This paper addresses this lacuna by drawing on United Kingdom based in-depth empirical research that made space for participatory appraisal experts to reflect on effective practice and novel questions of competence, expertise, and citizen-specialist relations within analytic-deliberative processes. Emerging practitioner principles warn that existing participatory models have not sufficiently considered constructivist perspectives on knowledge, analysis, and deliberation. Effective participatory appraisal under uncertainty needs to guard against the "technocracy of participation" by opening up to diversity, difference, antagonism, and uncertainties/indeterminacies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The "participatory turn" cutting across technical approaches for appraising environment, risk, science, and technology has been accompanied by intense debates over the desired nature, extent, and quality of public engagement in science. Burgeoning work evaluating the effectiveness of such processes and the social study of science in society more generally is notable, however, for lacking systematic understanding of the very actors shaping these new forms science-society interaction. The United Kingdom based in-depth empirical research that made space for participatory appraisal experts to reflect on effective practice and novel questions of competence, expertise, and citizen-specialist relations within analytic-deliberative processes. Emerging practitioner principles warn that existing participatory models have not sufficiently considered constructivist perspectives on knowledge, analysis, and deliberation. Effective participatory appraisal under uncertainty needs to guard against the "technocracy of participation" by opening up to diversity, difference, antagonism, and uncertainties/indeterminacies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Radical uncertainty, political controversy and public distrust in emerging areas of science and technology is fuelling moves towards new forms of governance centred on ex ante or 'upstream' public and stakeholder engagement with policy. Yet how is such deliberation and inclusion to be achieved in contentious national policy processes? We present a contextual framework that seeks to understand this question better and use it to reflect on two high-profile UK examples of 'new governance' in genetic modification and radioactive waste management. In doing this, we argue for: better definition of who/what is represented in such processes; mixed methodologies both to integrate analytic-deliberative dimensions and address questions of representative-ness; and more systematic evaluation of the outputs and outcomes of appraisal processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The roles digital media-technologies play in raising public issues relating to emerging technologies and their potential for engaging publics with science and policy assessments is a lively field of inquiry in Science and Technology Studies (STS). This paper presents an analysis of controversies over proposals for the large-scale removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CDR). The study combines a digital method (web-querying) with document analysis to map debates about two CDR approaches: bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and afforestation. In the first step, we locate actors using the web to engage with BECCS and afforestation and map their alignments in relation to competing framings of CDR. In a second step, we examine the devices deployed by UK-based actors to evidence and contest the feasibility of BECCS and afforestation. Our analysis shows that policy distinctions between "natural" and "engineered" CDR are used flexibly in practice and do not map neatly onto actor engagement with BECCS and afforestation. We highlight the predominance of cross-cutting techno-economic expertise and argue that framings of CDR as a solution to governing climate change may contribute to public disengagement from climate policy processes. The paper reflects on methods for studying controversies, publics, and issues emerging around processes of technoscientific assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Numerous international bodies have advocated the development of strategies to achieve the sustainability of marine environments. Typically, such strategies are based on information from expert groups about causes of degradation and policy options to address them, but these strategies rarely take into account assessed information about public awareness, concerns, and priorities. Here we report the results of a pan-European survey of public perceptions about marine environmental impacts as a way to inform the formation of science and policy priorities. On the basis of 10,106 responses to an online survey from people in 10 European nations, spanning a diversity of socioeconomic and geographical areas, we examine the public's informedness and concern regarding marine impacts, trust in different information sources, and priorities for policy and funding. Results show that the level of concern regarding marine impacts is closely associated with the level of informedness and that pollution and overfishing are two areas prioritized by the public for policy development. The level of trust varies greatly among different information sources and is highest for academics and scholarly publications but lower for government or industry scientists. Results suggest that the public perceives the immediacy of marine anthropogenic impacts and is highly concerned about ocean pollution, overfishing, and ocean acidification. Eliciting public awareness, concerns, and priorities can enable scientists and funders to understand how the public relates to marine environments, frame impacts, and align managerial and policy priorities with public demand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public policy requires public support, which in turn implies a need to enable the public not just to understand policy but also to be engaged in its development. Where complex science and technology issues are involved in policy making, this takes time, so it is important to identify emerging issues of this type and prepare engagement plans. In our horizon scanning exercise, we used a modified Delphi technique [1]. A wide group of people with interests in the science and policy interface (drawn from policy makers, policy adviser, practitioners, the private sector and academics) elicited a long list of emergent policy issues in which science and technology would feature strongly and which would also necessitate public engagement as policies are developed. This was then refined to a short list of top priorities for policy makers. Thirty issues were identified within broad areas of business and technology; energy and environment; government, politics and education; health, healthcare, population and aging; information, communication, infrastructure and transport; and public safety and national security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]