Engineering Publics: The Different Modes of Civic Technoscience

Abstract


 Amongst the many modes of citizen science in the past years TechnoCitizenScience has emerged. In this paper we argue that it is necessary to distinguish between science and technoscience since they are based upon different practices and goals. Whilst 'science' tries to explain the world, 'technoscience' tries to technologically construct worlds. Whereas citizen science involves publics to contribute to data gathering and interpretation, TechnoCitizenScience involves publics in technological world making. The article analyses three different cases of TechnoCitizenScience in a FabLab, a professional Makerspace and a civic hackathon. Whilst particular similarities such as discourses of inclusion and engineering rationalities guide these activities we show that TechnoCitizenScience takes place in diverse settings to fulfill different agendas. By creating prototypes for engineering publics TechnoCitizenScience expands the regime of technoscience into society.

A question of dialogue? Reflections on how citizen science can enhance communication between science and society

“…It also opens science up to include the knowledge of new, non-professional actors, who, while often unfamiliar with traditional scientific processes, provide a different epistemic quality by applying new explicit and implicit rules and structures [cf. Dickel, Schneider et al, 2019]. However, this requires a change to research structures, to those that make knowledge with different epistemic qualities visible, and that can integrate them on an equal footing.…”

Insect Affects

“…With its technocratic, economic, and managerial discourses, measurementality shifts the focus from political action to knowledge and loses sight of the diversity of ways of knowing biodiversity (also Irwin, 1995). Dickel et al (2019) write how civic technoscience, such as collecting biodiversity data via large online platforms, involves the public in the technological world making and constitutes technosocial publics. Here, the role of the public is limited to either embracing the technoscientific imaginaries or engaging in critical discourses (Dickel et al, 2019).…”

“…Dickel et al (2019) write how civic technoscience, such as collecting biodiversity data via large online platforms, involves the public in the technological world making and constitutes technosocial publics. Here, the role of the public is limited to either embracing the technoscientific imaginaries or engaging in critical discourses (Dickel et al, 2019). Still, Vohland et al (2019 see the impact of citizen science as ambivalent: it can either strengthen the neoliberalization of science by providing free data, and public goods like education, or citizen science can challenge neoliberalization by promoting new forms of cooperation and learning, that may safeguard non-economized sphere and lead to sustainability.…”

Prototyping Society - Zur vorauseilenden Technologisierung der Zukunft

“…Sie sind Labore partizipativer Grenzüberschreitung (vgl. Dickel et al 2019). Stellt man in Rechnung, dass die Formen der Problembearbeitung bei Grand Challenges aktuell zwischen »Demokratisierung« und »Technokratisierung« (Böschen 2018: 57) oszillieren, haben wir es bei Civic Hackathons mit einem interessanten Hybrid zu tun, nämlich einem demokratisierten Modus technikzentrierter Problembearbeitung (der wiederum selbst als optimierungsfähiges Tool betrachtet werden kann).…”