Abstract

The progressive introduction of emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology, has created a true testing ground for public engagement initiatives. Widespread experimentation has taken place with public and stakeholder dialogue and inclusive approaches to research and innovation (R&I) more generally. Against this backdrop, Social Science and Humanities (SSH) scholars have started to manifest themselves differently. They have taken on new roles in the public engagement field, including more practical and policy-oriented ones that seek to actively open the R&I system to wider public scrutiny. With public engagement gaining prominence, there has been a call for increased reflexivity among SSH scholars about their role in this field. In this paper, we study our own roles and stakes as SSH scholars in a European-funded public engagement project on responsible nanotechnology. We introduce a general role landscape and outline five distinct roles (engaged academic, deliberative practitioner, change agent, dialogue capacity builder, and project worker) that we—as SSH scholars—inhabited throughout the project. We discuss the synergistic potential of combining these five roles and elaborate on several tensions within the roles that we needed to navigate. We argue that balancing many roles requires explicit role awareness, reflexivity, and new competencies that have not been examined much in the public engagement literature so far. Our role landscape and exemplification of how it can be used to reflexively study one’s own practices may be a useful starting point for scholars who are seeking to better understand, assess, or communicate about their position in the public engagement field.

Highlights

  • Since the 1990s, we have witnessed a rise in public engagement1 with science and technology governance

  • At one end of the spectrum, we find the Social Science and Humanities (SSH) scholar who primarily aspires to contribute to academic reflection, and deliberately remains distant from getting involved in the actual policy and political processes of the research and innovation (R&I) system [20, 21, 29]

  • We constructed this role framework to reflect on the role synergies and conflicts that we experienced as SSH researchers who do have a normative orientation towards the democratization of the R&I system, and we chose to work with the incremental-radical axis

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Since the 1990s, we have witnessed a rise in public engagement with science and technology governance. The emerging field of nanotechnology has played a significant role here, serving as a true testing ground for the involvement of stakeholders and publics at a very early stage of development when adaptation of research and innovation (R&I) trajectories is still possible [4, 7, 8] The growth of this public engagement is grounded in a call for a new relationship between science and society—one that acknowledges the value of a broader range of experiences and knowledge types when dealing with complex issues surrounding technology [5]. We consider such knowledge and reflexivity crucial, at a time when many publicly funded engagement projects rely heavily on the versatile role identities of the SSH scholar

A Reflexive Study on Role Conflicts and Synergies
Objective
Discussion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call