Social scientists operate in a range of roles within the public engagement with science and technology agenda. Social scientists’ strengths in respect to “translation” and “intermediary” skills have captured attention at a time of disciplinary pressure to demonstrate impact. This article explores how social scientists’ engaged in public engagement with science and technology consider their role(s), drawing on 21 semistructured interviews and Horst and Michael’s proposals of an emergence model, in addition to ongoing discussions related to expertise. The findings suggest there are many benefits when social scientists engage with “strangers,” both scientific and public, but that focusing only on pragmatic elements misses the true opportunity such working relationships can offer among critical friends.
Academy of Social Sciences. (2010). Campaign for social science—News. London, England: Author. Retrieved from http://www.acss.org.uk/news
2.
BastowS.DunleavyP.TinklerJ. (2014). The impact of the social sciences: How academics and their research make a difference. London, England: Sage.
3.
BenyonJ.DavidM. (2008, June). Developing dialogue: Learned societies in the social sciences: Developing knowledge transfer and public engagement (Final Report). London, England: Academy of Social Sciences and ESRC.
4.
BickerstaffK.LorenzoniI.JonesM.PidgeonN. (2010). Locating scientific citizenship: The institutional contexts and cultures of public engagement. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35, 474-500.
5.
BijkerW.d’AndreaL. (2009, June). Handbook on the socialisation of scientific and technological research. Rome, Italy: European Community Sixth Framework Programme.
6.
BognerA. (2012). The paradox of participation experiments. Science, Technology & Human Values, 37, 506-527.
7.
BrewerJ. (2009). BSA president discusses impact. Durham, England: British Sociological Association. Retrieved from http://www.britsoc.co.uk/about/
BurchellK. (2009). A helping hand or a servant discipline?Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 5, 49-61.
10.
BurchellK.HoldenK. (2009). The roles of social science in public dialogue on science and technology: Report of a one-day stakeholder workshop, 4th July 2008. London, England: London School of Economics and Political Science.
11.
BurninghamK.BarnettJ.CarrA.CliftR.WehrmeyerW. (2007). Industrial constructions of publics and public knowledge: A qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 23-43.
12.
CalvertJ.MartinP. (2009). The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO Reports, 10, 201-204.
13.
CassidyA. (2008). Communicating the social sciences. In BucchiM.TrenchB. (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 225-236). London, England: Routledge.
14.
ChilversJ. (2013). Reflexive engagement? Actors, learning and reflexivity in public dialogue on science and technology. Science Communication, 35, 283-310.
15.
CollinsH. M.EvansR. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32, 235-296.
16.
CollinsH. M.EvansR. (2007). Rethinking expertise. London, England: University of Chicago Press.
17.
CollinsH. M.WeinelM. (2011). Transmuted expertise: How technical non-experts can assess experts and expertise. Argumentation, 25, 401-413.
18.
d’AndreaL.DeclichA. (2005). The sociological nature of science communication. Journal of Science Communication, 4, 1-9.
19.
DaviesP. (2004). Sociology and policy science: Just in time?British Journal of Sociology, 55, 447-450.
20.
DaviesS. R. (2009). Doing dialogue: Genre and flexibility in public engagement with science. Science as Culture, 18, 397-416.
21.
DaviesS. R. (2013). The rules of engagement: Power and interaction in dialogue events. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 1-15.
22.
DurodieB. (2002). Trust comes from expertise. In GillandT. (Ed.), Science: Can we trust the experts? (pp. 17-38). London, England: Hodder & Stoughton.
23.
Economic and Social Research Council, Heads and Professors of Sociology, & British Sociological Association. (2010). International benchmarking review of UK sociology. Swindon, England: Author.
24.
ElliotE.WilliamsG. (2008). Developing public sociology through health impact assessment. Sociology of Health & Illness, 30, 1101-1116.
25.
EpsteinS. (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.
26.
FeltU.FochlerM. (2008). The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation. Science and Public Policy, 35, 489-499.
27.
GibbonsM.LimogesC.NowotnyH.SchwartzmanS.ScottP.TrowM. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London, England: Sage.
28.
GouldnerA. W. (1973). For sociology: Renewal and critique in sociology today. London, England: Allen Lane.
29.
HammersleyM. (2000). Taking sides in social research: Essays on partisanship and bias. London, England: Routledge.
30.
HolmesJ.ClarkeR. (2008). Enhancing the use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation. Environmental Science and Policy, 11, 702-711.
31.
HorstM.MichaelM. (2011). On the shoulders of idiots: Re-thinking science communication as “event.”Science as Culture, 20, 283-306.
32.
IrwinA. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the “new” scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36, 299-320.
33.
JasanoffS. (2003). Breaking the waves in science studies. Social Studies of Science, 33, 389-400.
34.
JohnsonP. (2004). Making social science useful. British Journal of Sociology, 55, 23-30.
35.
JonesS. A.FischoffB.LachD. (1999). Evaluating the science-policy interface for climate change research. Climatic Change, 43, 581-599.
36.
JungC. (2009). Towards more confidence: About the roles of social scientists in participatory policy making. Poiesis Prax, 6, 125-129.
37.
LevittR.CeliaC.DiepeveenS.ChonaillS. N.RabinovichLTiessenJ. (2010). Assessing the impact of arts and humanities research at the University of Cambridge. Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge.
38.
LezaunJ.SonerydL. (2007). Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 279-297.
39.
LomasJ. (2007). The in-between world of knowledge brokering. British Medical Journal, 334, 129-132.
40.
Martín-SempereM.Garzón-GarcíaB.Rey-RochaK. (2008). Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 349-367.
41.
McKenzie StevensS. (2008). Speaking out: Toward an institutional agenda for refashioning STS scholars as public intellectuals. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33, 730-753.
42.
MetcalfeJ.RiedlingerM.PisarskiA. (2008). Situating science in the social context by cross-sectoral collaboration. In ChengD.ClaessensM.GascoigneT.MetcalfeJ.SchieleB.ShiS. (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 181-197). New York, NY: Springer.
43.
MeyerM. (2010). The rise of the knowledge broker. Science Communication, 32, 118-127.
44.
MichaelM. (2012). “What are we busy doing?” Engaging the idiot. Science, Technology & Human Values, 37, 528-554.
45.
NisbetM.ScheufeleD. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96, 1767-1778.
46.
OsborneT.RoseN. (1999). Do the social sciences create phenomena? The example of public opinion research. British Journal of Sociology, 50, 367-396.
47.
ParryS. (2009). Stem cell scientists’ discursive strategies for cognitive authority. Science as Culture, 18, 89-114.
48.
PidgeonN.FischhoffB. (2011). The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nature Climate Change, 1, 35-41.
49.
PoliakoffE.WebbT. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?Science Communication, 29, 242-263.
50.
PowellM.ColinM. (2009). Participatory paradoxes: Facilitating citizen engagement in science and technology from the top-down?Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 29, 325-342.
51.
RitchieJ.SpencerL. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In BrymanA.BurgessR. G. (Eds.), Analysing qualitative data (pp. 173-194). London, England: Routledge.
52.
RoseN. (2013). The human sciences in a biological age. Theory, Culture and Society, 30, 3-34.
53.
SchummerJ. (2009). Science communication across disciplines. In HollimanR.ThomasJ.SmidtS.ScanlonE.WhiteleggE. (Eds.), Practising science communication in the information age (pp. 53-66). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
54.
SharpeL. J. (1975). The social scientist and policy-making: Some cautionary thoughts and transatlantic reflections. Policy and Politics, 4, 7-34.
55.
TrenchB. (2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In ChengD.ClaessensM.GascoigneT.MetcalfeJ.SchieleB.ShiS. (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 119-135). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
56.
TwoCan Associates. (2009). An evaluation of the process and impact of patient and public involvement in the advisory groups of the UK clinical research collaboration (Final Report). London, England: UK Clinical Research Collabora-tion. Retrieved from http://www.ukcrc.org/wp-content/up-loads/2014/03/PPI_Evaluation_Report.pdf
57.
ValveH.McNallyR. (2012). Articulating scientific practice with PROTEE: STS, loyalties, and the limits of reflexivity. Science, Technology & Human Values, 38, 470-491.
58.
WebsterA. (2007). Crossing boundaries: Social science in the policy room. Science, Technology & Human Values, 32, 458-478.
59.
WilkinsonC.BultitudeK.DawsonE. (2011). “Oh yes, robots! People like robots; the robot people should do something”: Perspectives and prospects in public engagement with robotics. Science Communication, 33, 367-397.
Wright MillsC. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
62.
WynneB. (1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay divide. In LashS.SzerszynskiB.WynneB. (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity (pp. 44-83). London, England: Sage.
63.
WynneB. (2003). Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositional: Response to Collins and Evans. Social Studies of Science, 33, 401-417.
