Engaging whom and for what ends? Australian stakeholders’ constructions of public engagement in relation to nanotechnologies

Petersen, Alan; Bowman, Diana M.

doi:10.3354/esep00124

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Public engagement has a variety of meanings in theory and practice ranging from the purely rhetorical to a type of communication or educational experience based on the deficit model of the public understanding of science to a form of deliberative democracy [35]. The types of engagement we describe here are labeled in terms of the user’s experience and process of becoming aware, knowledgeable or vocal about Michigan’s BioTrust.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Born in Michigan? You're in the Biobank': Engaging Population Biobank Participants through Facebook Advertisements

Platt

Thiel

et al. 2013

Public Health Genomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Born in Michigan? You're in the Biobank': Engaging Population Biobank Participants through Facebook Advertisements

Platt

Thiel

et al. 2013

Public Health Genomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There remains a tendency for experts in government, science, and industry to treat citizens simply as passive recipients of information, and to "correct" public misunderstandings of science and technology issues (Jasanoff, 2005). Experiments in PTA have likewise struggled to break down divisions between experts and "lay" publics, with some supposedly participatory processes effectively reenacting an outdated model of one-way science communication (Petersen and Bowman, 2012). Furthermore, institutionalized processes that bring together citizens, scientists, and policymakers often fail to acknowledge or balance power relations among these groups (van Oudheusden, 2011).…”

Section: Public Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Materials sovereignty: Pathways for shaping nanotechnology design

Kokai

Iles

2020

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People in contemporary industrial societies encounter countless novel materials that did not exist previously, many of which present risks to health and environment. In this article, we build on the concept of “materials sovereignty” as the right of people to use and be surrounded by environmentally benign, non-toxic, and renewing materials in their everyday lives. As a rights-based approach, materials sovereignty may help change the politics of governing materials. We suggest that social movements that explicitly base interventions into design on materials sovereignty may be better able to gain traction in changing industrial production. We consider the case of nanotechnology as a particularly challenging field for social movement intervention. We review several pathways that have been used by social movement organizations in attempts to influence the development of nanomaterials, but which have met with limited success. We more closely examine three participatory pathways through which social movements could intervene more directly into material design: participatory technology assessment, collaboration with industry, and co-design. We identify three key elements of materials sovereignty: participatory knowledge systems, which create multi-directional flows of knowledge and agency; the embedding of citizen voices into design processes; and building accountability systems. Of the pathways we examine here, co-design appears to be the most promising from a theoretical and ethical perspective, but there remain significant institutional and organizational challenges for bringing it into practice.

show abstract

“…Public engagement is surrounded by definitional ambiguity, since it has multiple meanings and applications in practice (Petersen and Bowman 2012). For example, (Jolibert and Wesselink 2012) have defined stakeholder engagement as the active involvement of various stakeholders (i.e.…”

Section: Forms Of Public Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%