Making technologies and their publics visible in science

communication: the case of low-carbon technology

PCST2012Technology Producing Publics: Theories, Practices, and Cases

Beverley Gibbs, University of Nottingham, UKDr Sujatha Raman, University of Nottingham, UK

Technology Producing Publics:the UK Context

• Over the last 10-15 years there have been efforts to create publics who have “a relationship” with science– A (re?)orientation toward public engagement by government,

learned institutions, research funders, universities and industry

– large-scale investment to create enthusiasm for science in general

– Formal dialogues on emergent technologies– Increasingly, the communication of science related to

collective problems– Publics created by sponsors in such exercises are carefully

designed

‘Uninvited’ publics can be even more active

• However, the self-creation or “emergence” of active publics is considered to be something quite separate

• Emergent publics can be highly problematic for event sponsors– Oppositional standpoints– Bias/’unrepresentative’?– Too much of the wrong type of information?!– Eg GM Nation 2003

This poses new questions, approached today

• How can we account for different ways in which publics are constituted around technology/technoscience?

• And which publics are made visible through these networks?

Upstream and Downstream communication presents differing challenges

• Upstream communication is unformed, conceptual

• Publics are shadowy, often unknown, often not yet emerged

• Engagement is around knowledge• Public voice via friendly science

engagement having speculative talks or carefully designed formal dialogues

• Consensus to be pursued• Contested areas are often on

knowledge claims, sometimes ideologicalised values

• Engagement work can be carefully designed, and so can its publics

Upstream and Downstream communication presents differing challenges

• Upstream communication is unformed, conceptual

• Publics are shadowy, often unknown, often not yet emerged

• Engagement is around knowledge• Public voice via friendly science

engagement having speculative talks or carefully designed formal dialogues

• Consensus to be pursued• Contested areas are often on

knowledge claims, sometimes ideologicalised values

• Engagement work can be carefully designed, and so can its publics

• Downstream communication is tangible, here in the world

• Emerged publics more typical• Engagement is closely aligned with

marketing• Public voice via regulators,

planning processes (power struggle?)

• Efforts to ‘stage-manage’ remain• Opposition can quickly become

hostile• Conflict focusses on the shape this

technology takes in the world, and what entanglements it brings with it

How can we understand ‘entanglements’?

This indivisible combination of the material, the social, the political and the economic

can be considered a socio-technical network

Downstream begets (some) publics, though still masks others : Wind Energy in Scotland

• Looking at the factors which affect acceptability makes visible the sociotechnical network: – Siting– Scale– Process– Ownership– Connection to grid– Intermittancy

• Concerns here span physical, procedural, commercial and political spheres that are highly resistant to traditional ‘communication’ techniques

• Contrast this understanding to one of general exhortations of the renewable energy economy, where the technology is considered unambiguously ‘good’ and the community reacts with ‘NIMBYism’

Downstream begets (some) publics, though still masks others : Wind Energy in Scotland

• Although emergent publics can illuminate the network, this only goes so far

• The remote publics affected in manufacturing turbines are now being (unknowingly?) made visible– Business press highlights role of China as

dominant supplier of rare earth metals– But sourcing of materials has not been a focus

(yet) of wind activists

Expanding networks – and publics: the biomass case

• Here, a more global public is being invoked• Despite the implementation of numerous other renewable

technologies in Scotland, the possibility of biomass plants at several Scottish ports has proved contentious

• Concerns around:– Siting and scale of plant– Natural environments (deforestation)– Food (land use decisions)– Political (whether sustainability ‘promises’ can be assured in producing

countries)– Lock-in to unsustainable growth models

• Proposals are attracting significant organised opposition and one has been withdrawn

So, does technology produce publics?

• Yes: publics that differ in their origin and intent as well as their composition and location

• Created publics that fulfill a sponsor’s needs• Emergent publics arising from the tangible nature of

technologies• Emergent publics help unpack the ‘black box’ of

technologies, making the wider network more visible• This is an uneven and ongoing process

– In the low carbon case, some parts of the network – and publics – remain invisible (wind energy) though are becoming more visible elsewhere (biomass)