Narrative as a resource for inclusive governance: a UK–Brazil comparison of public responses to nanotechnology

Abstract

In this article we examine the role of narrative as a resource for developing inclusive governance frameworks, principally through an examination of two public deliberation experiments, conducted concurrently in the UK and Brazil, that took place prior to the rise of interest in responsible innovation. While in the UK we witness a (partial) rhetorical move in science governance, from a top-down technocratic model to a more deliberative model in which public engagement assumes a central role, in Brazil the political contestations over particular technologies failed to gain political traction. A contrast is drawn between the narratives that publics draw upon in responding to nanotechnology between UK and Brazilian publics. We draw on these differences to argue that situated narratives of epistemic inclusion need to be addressed at the outset of adapting any responsible innovation framework to best align its goals and practices with the context of implementation.

Responsible Innovation Definitions, Practices, and Motivations from Nanotechnology Researchers in Food and Agriculture

“…This has resulted in a recognition of the importance of context when considering how to approach RI. For example, RI should be informed by differing national, cultural, epistemic, institutional, economic, regulatory, organizational, and technological contexts and circumstances [19,20]. However, with so many definitions, practices, and motivations available, it is also possible that innovators pursuing RI may -consciously or not -take the path of least resistance when enacting RI.…”

“…This brief description demonstrates the breadth of RI definitions, practices, and motivations and emphasizes the need for increased attention to how RI is defined and practiced in particular contexts [17,19,20]. Noting that RI takes different forms in different contexts suggests it is more fluid than a prescriptive set of definitions and practices.…”

AI-powered narrative building for facilitating public participation and engagement

“…Other scholars, such as Macnaghten and Guivant [ 50 ] and Prior and Leston-Bandeira [ 72 ] have explored the important role story-telling and narratives play in both designing and facilitating effective public engagement strategies, and when it comes to improving citizen’s understanding of emerging public policy challenges and potential solutions. For example, Macnaghten and Guivant [ 50 ] have explained that using ‘situated narratives of epistemic inclusion’ is essential to developing innovation frameworks that will be appropriated and adapted to the societies they seek to serve.…”

“…Other scholars, such as Macnaghten and Guivant [ 50 ] and Prior and Leston-Bandeira [ 72 ] have explored the important role story-telling and narratives play in both designing and facilitating effective public engagement strategies, and when it comes to improving citizen’s understanding of emerging public policy challenges and potential solutions. For example, Macnaghten and Guivant [ 50 ] have explained that using ‘situated narratives of epistemic inclusion’ is essential to developing innovation frameworks that will be appropriated and adapted to the societies they seek to serve. Similarly, Prior and Leston-Bandeira [ 72 ] have observed that the use of storytelling techniques, that include narrator, characters plot and audience, provides a critical opportunity to represent Parliament and government as a relevant and relatable institution, and a safe space for meaningful public engagement.…”

Affective Labor in Integrative STS Research

“…During this adaptation phase, the discipline struggled to keep pace with emerging developments (Macnaghten, Kearnes, and Wynne 2005). Despite this, the bureaucratization of social science put the discipline in a position to question processes of innovation, which until the twenty-first century, perpetuated a linear narrative between science and society (Macnaghten 2020). Successive alternatives, in the form of conceptual frameworks and methodologies, were proposed to “open up” how science and technology are researched and governed in the context of broader technological assessment, science policy-making, and “socially shaping” innovation.…”