Opening Up the Participation Laboratory

Abstract

How to embed reflexivity in public participation in techno-science, and to open it up to the agency of publics, are key concerns in current debates. There is a risk of engagements being limited to by participation experts, particularly in upstream techno-sciences I by engaging localized, self-assembling publics in ways that respect and mobilize their ecologies of participation. Our innovative reflexive methodology introduced participatory methods to public engagement with upstream techno-science, with the public contributing to both the content and format of the project. This experience drew our attention to the largely overlooked issue of temporalities of participation, and the co-production of futures and publics in participation methodologies. We argue that many public participation methodologies are underpinned by the open futures model which imagines the future as a space of unrestrained creativity. We contrast it with the lived futures model typical of localized publics, which respects latency of materials and processes, but imposes limits on creativity. We argue that to continue being societally relevant and scientifically important, public participation methods should reconcile the open future of research with lived futures of localized publics.

Disentangling the social complexities of assisted migration through deliberative methods

“…At issue (and stake) is that the outcomes of these engagements often have no influence on decision-making and policies. Other related difficulties of so-called 'participation laboratories' is the tendency to (even if unintentionally) restrict the ability of publics to meaningfully shape the participatory exercise or its outputs (Krzywoszynska et al, 2018). Contrary to their very intention, such approaches can serve to undermine, rather than reveal potentially diverse and alternative ways of envisioning sustainable futures and, in so doing, implicitly endorse the status quo (Castree et al, 2014).…”

Learning the lessons of Climategate: A cosmopolitan moment in the public life of climate science

“…Third, Climategate did prompt some scientists to open up their engagement practices, rejecting the idea that conflicting values or political stances should exclude individuals from public discussions about climate change. The legacy of Climategate may be mixed, but there is a major opportunity today to build on these positive changes to address the hard work of reconciling desires for low-carbon futures with lived local experiences (Krzywoszynska et al, 2018). Where scholars in the social sciences and humanities have advocated a cosmopolitan perspective toward knowledge required for such climate action, we argue that we are now seeing promising examples of such perspectives in practice.…”

Limits and benefits of participatory agenda setting for research and innovation

“…Consequently, the first two paradigms of science literacy and public understanding of science are not superseded by the dialogical form of science and society relation, but continue to simultaneously inform research and policy [22]. This resulted in criticism, for instance regarding conflict between integrity/impartiality of science and its "involvement with the vested interests of the State and commerce on policy issues", threatening to destroy public trust in science [28], or regarding the alloted diminishing of democratically credible and sometimes effective "street-protest" in response to uneffective laboratory-like partcipation experiments [29,30]. Stilgoe et al [31], however, describe a 'gradual and incomplete shift from understanding to engagement', or, in short, from deficit to dialogue.…”