Sublime technology and object of fear: offshore wind scientists assessing publics

Abstract

Abstract.

Bioenergy experts and their imagined “obligatory publics” in the United States: Implications for public engagement and participation

“…These insights are important in light of research demonstrating that experts often conceive of publics as ignorant, mechanistic, and inadequately educated or misinformed about technoscience projects (Belsey and Nisbet 2013; Burningham et al 2007;Heidenreich 2015;Michael 1996;Walker et al 2010)-what Wynne (1991) terms deficit models. Imagining publics via deficit thinking constitutes the -habitual, unquestioned ways of thought and practice‖ for many experts (Wynne 2001, 475).…”

“…The imagined publics literature argues that experts who design technological systems necessarily do so with an idealized imagined public in mind (Heidenreich 2015;Walker et al 2010)-or what Maranta et al (2003, 151) describe as -conceptions of lay persons as they are manifested in the products and actions of experts.‖ That is, while experts may not explicitly recognize or discuss how they envision publics, these conceptualizations are nonetheless implicitly embedded in their discourse and activities, with consequences for the solutions they propose and apply to problems. Further, the models of publics that guide expert actions are determined by the various competences that experts ascribe to publics, including not only epistemic constructions (e.g, publics as ignorant, misinformed), but also other functional competences seen as motivating publics to act, such as economic rationality (Maranta et al 2003).…”

“…Instead, the public carries agency through expert conceptualizations of their response to technological projects (Burningham et al 2015). In this way, imagined publics shape how technologies are developed and implemented, the decision-making processes that determine their dissemination and siting (Heidenreich 2015), and how their promoters will interact with publics (Levidow 2015).…”

“…As recent research reports, the aim of experts who promote RET development is to secure the social acceptance or -loyalty‖ (Maranta et al 2003) of -citizens,‖ -neighbors‖ (Burningham et al 2007), -consumers‖ (Marris 2015), Cooperative Extension and natural resource managers (Wright and Eaton 2014), and other -potentially overtly political actors who express opinions about; engage in opposition to; or support what is being produced, used by others, located, and operated in particular contexts‖ (Walker et al 2010 933). That is, the idealized role for various publics-whose participation with -what is being produced‖ is at best indirect-is to embrace or, at a minimum, respond with indifference or quiescence to RET projects (Heidenreich 2015). What is key for experts is that publics act as passive recipients of fully conceived technological projects, rather than raising concerns (cf.…”

Det fleksible mennesket 2.0: Om sosiale relasjoner i fremtidens digitale elektrisitetssystem

“…For mange aktører er imidlertid fremtiden et umiddelbart og konkret kunnskapsobjekt knyttet til gjennomføringen av spesifikke prosjekter. Når det gjelder overgangen fra fossile til fornybare energiteknologier, har mange studier sett på hvordan teknologiaktører forestiller seg en offentlig respons, for eksempel til en fremtidig utbygging av vindkraft, kraftlinjer eller bioenergianlegg (Barnett, Burningham, Walker & Cass, 2012;Heidenreich, 2015). Et gjennomgående funn i Norge og internasjonalt er at aktørene som søker å implementere teknologiene, ofte fortolker offentligheten via ulike underskuddsmodeller (Burningham, Barnett & Walker, 2015).…”