Abstract
This paper investigates the dynamic and performative construction of publics in public engagement exercises. In this investigation, we, on the one hand, analyse how public engagement settings as political machineries frame particular kinds of roles and identities for the participating publics in relation to ‘the public at large’. On the other hand, we study how the participating citizens appropriate, resist and transform these roles and identities, and how they construct themselves and the participating group in relation to wider publics. The empirical basis of our argument is a discussion of four different kinds of participation events in Austria. Building on these observations we develop conclusions about the public up-take of public participation in technoscience and the role of public engagement in current techno-political cultures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Up to this day, a second discourse day has been conducted in 2004, and a second citizen conference on energy politics in 2007, both of which we will not discuss here.
More concretely, our observations build on an analysis of structured observation protocols of the event, audio- and video recordings, 51 ten-minute-long structured interviews with participants at the event, 12 longer qualitative interviews with participants after the event, as well as two focus groups with participants which were also conducted after the event. A comprehensive German analysis of this data can be downloaded from http://sciencestudies.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_sciencestudies/pdf_files/evaluierung_diskurstag.pdf.
In detail, our analysis builds on the transcripts of six whole-day Round Table discussions between citizens and scientists, one reflection Round Table of the citizens without the scientists, as well as 14 semi-structured qualitative interviews with the citizens before and 14 similar interviews after the series of Round Table debates.
For the case of the focus groups we have discussed this in detail in comparison to focus groups in other national contexts (Felt et al. 2010)
See Horst and Irwin (2010) for an interesting contrasting case in a different national context.
References
Akrich, Madeleine. 1992. The description of technical objects. In Shaping Technology / Building Society. Studies in sociotechnical change, ed. John Law, 205–224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Barry, Andrew. 2001. Political machines. Governing a Technological Society. London: Athlone Press.
Bogner, Alexander. 2004. Partizipative Politikberatung am Beispiel der BürgerInnenkonferenz 2003 [Participatory Policy Advice: The Example of the Citizen Conference 2003]. Report available from http://epub.oeaw.ac.at/?arp=0x0010b250. Accessed 15 Oct 2009.
Braun, Kathrin, and Susanne Schultz. 2010. “… A certain amount of engineering involved”: constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements. Public Understanding of Science 19(4): 403–419.
Dryzek, John, and Aviezer Tucker. 2008. Deliberative innovation to different effect: consensus conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States. Public Administration Review 68(5): 864–876.
Felt, Ulrike. 2003. “One science—many Europes?” On the difficulties of transferring experiences in science-society interactions. In O.P.U.S.—Optimizing public understanding of science and technology, ed. Ulrike Felt. Report available from http://sciencestudies.univie.ac.at/publications/?L=2. Accessed 23 Jan 2010.
Felt, Ulrike, and Maximilian Fochler. 2008. The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation in science and technology. Science and Public Policy 35(7): 489–499.
Felt, Ulrike, Brian Wynne, et al. 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: European Commission.
Felt, Ulrike, Maximilian Fochler, Astrid Mager, and Peter Winkler. 2008. Visions and versions of governing biomedicine: narratives on power structures, decision-making and public participation in the field of biomedical technology in the Austrian context. Social Studies of Science 38(2): 233–255.
Felt, Ulrike, Maximilian Fochler, Annina Müller, and Michael Strassnig. 2009. Unruly ethics: On the difficulties of a bottom-up approach to ethics in the field of genomics. Public Understanding of Science 18(3): 354–371.
Felt, Ulrike, Maximilian Fochler, and Peter Winkler. 2010. Coming to terms with biomedical technologies in different techno-political cultures. A comparative analysis of focus groups on organ transplantation and genetic testing in Austria, France, and the Netherlands. Science, Technology & Human Values 35(4): 525–553.
Felt, Ulrike, and Maximilian Fochler. forthcoming. Slim futures and the fat pill: Civic imaginations of innovation and governance in an engagement setting. Science as Culture In print.
Goodin, Robert, and John Dryzek. 2006. Deliberative impact: The macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics and Society 34(2): 219–244.
Goven, Joanna. 2006. Dialogue, governance, and biotechnology: acknowledging the context of the conversation. The Integrated Assessment Journal 6(2): 99–116.
Hacking, Ian. 1986. Making up people. In Reconstructing individualism, ed. T.C. Helier, et al., 222–236. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hecht, Gabrielle. 2001. Technology, politics, and national identity in france. In Technologies of power: Essays in honor of Thomas Parker Hughes and Agatha Chipley Hughes, eds. Michael Allen, and Gabrielle Hecht, 253–293. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press.
Horst, Maja, and Alan Irwin. 2010. Nations at ease with radical knowledge: on consensus, consensusing and false consensusness. Social Studies of Science 40(1): 106–126.
Irwin, Alan. 2001. Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 1–18.
Irwin, Alan. 2006. The politics of talk: coming to terms with the ‘new scientific governance’. Social Studies of Science 36(2): 299–320.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004. States of knowledge: the co-production of science and the social order. London: Routledge.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lezaun, Javier, and Linda Soneryd. 2007. Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science 16(3): 279–297.
Marres, Nortje. 2005. No issue, No public: Democratic deficits after the displacement of politics. Doctoral Dissertation: Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Michael, Mike. 2009. Publics performing publics: of PiGs, PiPs and politics. Public Understanding of Science 18(5): 617–631.
Rose, Nicolas. 1999. Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wynne, Brian. 2007. Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology, and Society: An International Journal 1(1): 1–13.
Acknowledgments
This paper builds on research conducted in the framework of the projects: “Evaluation of the discourse day on genetic diagnosis 2002”, funded by the Austrian genome research programme GEN-AU; “Challenges of Biomedicine. Socio-Cultural Contexts, European Governance, and Bioethics”, funded by the European Commission in the 6th framework programme, Contract No. SAS6-CT-2003-510238; and “Let’s talk about GOLD. Analysing the interactions between genome research(ers) and the public as a learning process”, funded by the Austrian genome research programme GEN-AU as an ELSA project. Project leader or coordinator for all three projects was Ulrike Felt. The authors acknowledge the contribution of all colleagues involved in these projects, both as collaborators and advisors. A prior version of this paper was presented in an organised session at the annual conference of the Society for the Social Studies of Science in Washington 2009. We would like to thank the session organisers Regula Burri and Brice Laurent, as well as the other participants and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism and suggestions. Martha Kenney’s help in doing the final language editing is also highly appreciated.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Felt, U., Fochler, M. Machineries for Making Publics: Inscribing and De-scribing Publics in Public Engagement. Minerva 48, 219–238 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-010-9155-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-010-9155-x