Art for public engagement on emerging and controversial technologies: A literature review

Abstract

Art is increasingly used to engage publics on emerging and controversial technologies, but we still know little about what works in art-based engagement and why. To investigate what art can do for public engagement, we systematically reviewed academic work published from 2000 to 2018 about the effect of art on organized public engagement. We used the dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation as an analytical framework to identify what outcomes are achieved and what processes contribute to those outcomes. The 30 included studies showed that art mainly supported engagement by (1) reaching wider audiences, (2) fueling individual reflection, and (3) making visible how technologies come into being and interact with the world. With due consideration of the risks of instrumentalization, future research should empirically and reflexively investigate the outcomes and methodologies of art-based engagement, especially concerning collective reflection and change.

Creating room for citizen perspectives in ‘smart city’ Amsterdam through interactive theatre

“…The data were analysed based on the responsible innovation dimensions. For each dimension, we looked for the desired outcomes and required processes in line with the literature review on art-based methods for public engagement with emerging technologies by Fraaije et al (2022). In addition, we paid special attention to the challenges related to achieving the outcomes and/or processes of each dimension.…”

“…This article builds upon the idea that some of these challenges may be addressed with art-based citizen engagement approaches. The visual and performing arts, for example, have been found to draw in wider audiences, to make the possible social and ethical aspects of emerging technologies more tangible, and to support reflection (Fraaije et al, 2022;Roeser and Steinert, 2019). In the context of the smart city, art projects have also successfully shown the cost of dataveillance, visualised the politics of data, and facilitated public reflection (de Lange et al, 2019;Monahan, 2018;Van Zoonen, 2021).…”

“…Yet, there are also unresolved questions and challenges regarding the use of art for citizen engagement. Art projects can be difficult to steer, trigger sensation rather than reflection, and remain disconnected from innovation trajectories (de Lange and de Waal, 2013;Fraaije et al, 2022;Monahan, 2015;Van Zoonen, 2021).…”

Exploring Responsible Research and Innovation in Museums Through Hands‐on Activities

“…Science communicators and informal educators have experimented with a variety of ways to encourage public participation in RRI, such as citizens' assemblies, citizen science, music and theater performances, and science shops for community science (e.g. Khodzhaeva & Troncoso, 2016; Kuh, 2018; PROSO Consortium, 2018; Steinhaus & Mulder, 2014; see Fraaije et al., 2022; Marschalek, 2015 for cross‐project reviews).…”

“…While there has been important progress in the development of frameworks with principles and intended learning outcomes for RRI (Burget et al., 2017; Heras & Ruiz‐Mallén, 2017; PROSO Consortium, 2018), there are few studies that link those frameworks to engagement strategies and practices or that provide a rigorous examination of participant learning outcomes (Bauer et al., 2021; Real & Schmittinger, 2022; Rowe & Frewer, 2004; but see Fraaije et al., 2022). Evaluation of RRI engagement efforts tends to focus on the challenges of uniting organizations and efforts toward RRI goals (D'Arcy & Mariani, 2022; Rizzo & Deserti, 2022; Vermeulen et al., 2016), reflecting the field's early stage of development (Köppchen, 2022; Krabbenborg & Mulder, 2015; van der Windt et al., 2014).…”