This article examines the main approaches to public understanding of science (PUS) in light of recent developments in social and cultural theory. While traditional and critical perspectives on PUS differ in terms of their models of the public, science, and understanding, they nevertheless share a number of commonalities, which are humanism (an emphasis on the pure person), incorporeality (a neglect of embodiment), and discrete sites (science and the public are presupposed as separate entities). These are contrasted, respectively, to versions of the person as hybridic, to treatments of embodiment drawing especially on Whitehead’s notion of prehension, and to a rhizomic view of science and public as interwoven. Throughout, it is stressed that the alternatives posed do not constitute an accusation of deficit on the part of traditional and critical PUS. Some research and political implications of interweaving these three perspectives are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abercrombie, N., S. Hill, and B. Turner. 1986. The sovereign individual. London: Allen and Unwin.
2.
Adam, B.1998. Timescapes of modernity. London: Routledge.
3.
Billig, M.1987. Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Billig, M.1991. Ideology and opinions. London: Sage.
5.
Billig, M., S. Condor, D. Edwards, M. Gane, D. Middleton, and A. Radley. 1988. Ideological dilemmas. London: Sage.
6.
Bowker, G., and S. L. Star. 1999. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
Burkitt, I.1999. Bodies of thought: Embodiment, identity and modernity. London: Sage.
8.
Dean, M.1999. Governmentality. London: Sage.
9.
Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1988. A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: Athlone.
10.
Durant, J. R., M. Bauer, and G. Gaskell, eds. 1997. Biotechnology in the public sphere: A European sourcebook. London: Science Museum.
11.
Durant, J. R., G. A. Evans, and G. P. Thomas. 1989. The public understanding of science. Nature, 6 July, 11-14.
12.
Edwards, D., and N. Mercer. 1987. Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.
13.
Farr, R. M.1993. Common sense, science and social representations. Public Understanding of Science2:189-204.
14.
Franklin, S. T.1990. Speaking from the depths. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
15.
Gieryn, T.1983. Boundary work in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review48:781-795.
16.
Gieryn, T.1995. Boundaries of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, and T. Pinch, 393-443. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
Gieryn, T.1998. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
Gregory, J., and S. Miller. 1998. Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility. New York: Plenum.
19.
Haraway, D.1989. Primate visions. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
20.
Haraway, D.1991. Simians, cyborgs and nature. London: Free Association Books.
21.
Held, D.1987. Models of democracy. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
22.
House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. 2000. Science and technology—3d report. Available from http://www.parlaiment.the-stationery-o...ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm
Irwin, A., A. Dale, and D. Smith. 1996. Science and hell’s kitchen: The local understanding of hazard issues. In Misunderstanding science? edited by A. Irwin and B. Wynne, 64-77. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Irwin, A., P. Simmons, and G. Walker. 1999. Faulty environments and risk reasoning: The local understanding of industrial hazards. Environment and Planning A31:1311-1326.
26.
Jenks, C.1995. The centrality of the eye in Western culture. In Visual culture, edited by C. Jenks, 1-25. London: Routledge.
27.
Lambert, H., and H. Rose. 1996. Disembodied knowledge: Making sense of medical science. In Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology, edited by A. Irwin and B. Wynne, 65-83. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Latour, B.1993. We have never been modern. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
29.
Latour, B.1999. Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
Lave, J.1988. Cognition in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Law, J.1991. Introduction: Monsters, machines and sociotechnical relations. In A sociology of monsters, edited by J. Law. London: Routledge.
Lawrence, C., and S. Shapin, eds. 1998. Science incarnate: Historical embodiments of natural knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
Layton, D., E. Jenkins, S. MacGill, and A. Davey. 1993. Inarticulate science?Driffield, UK: Studies in Education.
35.
Lykke, N., and R. Braidotti, eds. 1996. Between monsters, goddesses and cyborgs: Feminist confrontations with science, medicine and cyberspace. London: Zed Books.
36.
Martin, E.1998. Anthropology and cultural study of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values23:24-44.
37.
Michael, M.1996a. Constructing identities: The social, the nonhuman and change. London: Sage.
38.
Michael, M.1996b. Ignoring Science: Discourses of ignorance in the public understanding of science. In Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology, edited by Alan Irwin and Brian Wynne, 105-125. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39.
Michael, M.1998a. Between citizen and consumer: Multiplying the meanings of the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science7:313-327.
40.
Michael, M.1998b. Co(a)gency and cars: The case of road rage. In Machines, agency and desire, edited by Brita Brenna, John Law, and Ingunn Moser, 125-141. Oslo: TVM.
41.
Michael, M.2000. Reconnecting culture, technology and nature: From society to heterogeneity. London: Routledge.
42.
Michael, M.2001. Between the mundane and the exotic: Time for a different sociotechnical stuff. Unpublished Manuscript.
43.
Michael, M., and N. Brown. 2000. The representation of publics to the performance of “lay political science.”Social Epistemology14 (1): 3-19.
44.
Michael, M., and S. Carter. 2001. The facts about fictions and vice versa: Process in the public understanding of science. Science as Culture10 (1): 5-32.
45.
Michael, M., A. Grinyer, and J. Turner. 1997. Teachers of biotechnology: Identity in the context of ignorance and knowledgeability. Public Understanding of Science6 (1): 1-17.
46.
Myerson, G., and Y. Rydin. 1996. The language of environment: The new rhetoric. London: University College London Press.
47.
Novas, C., and N. Rose. 2000. Genetic risk and the birth of the somatic individual. Economy and Society29 (4): 485-513.
48.
Parkin, F.1982. Max Weber. Chichester, UK: Ellis Harwood.
49.
Richards, E., and M. Ashmore. 1996. More sauce please! The politics of SSK: Neutrality, commitment and beyond. Social Studies of Science26:219-228.
50.
Rose, N.1996. Inventing our selves: Psychology, power and personhood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51.
Rose, N.1999. Powers of freedom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
52.
Royal Society of London. 1985. The public understanding of science. London: The Royal Society.
Serres, M.1995. Angels: A modern myth. Paris: Flammarion.
55.
Strathern, M.1991. Partial connections. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
56.
Turner, B.1996. The body and society. 2d ed.London: Sage.
57.
Werbner, P., and T. Modood, eds. 1997. Debating cultural hybridity. London: Zed Books.
58.
Whitehead, A. N.1929. Process and reality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
59.
Wynne, B. E.1989. Frameworks of rationality in risk management: Towards the testing of naive sociology. In Environmental threats, edited by J. Brown, 33-47. London: Belhaven.
60.
Wynne, B. E.1991. Knowledges in context. Science, Technology, & Human Values16:111-121.
61.
Wynne, B. E.1992. Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science1:281-304.
62.
Wynne, B. E.1995. The public understanding of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, and T. Pinch, 361-388. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
63.
Wynne, B. E.1996. May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay divide. In Risk, environment and modernity, edited by S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne, 44-83. London: Sage.
