This paper explores the use of “situated knowledges” as a means of grounding debates about “scientific citizenship” within practical research interventions. We describe the development of a focus group methodology that uses opportunities for storytelling to elicit the situated knowledges of research participants regarding human genetic testing. The application of this methodology is illustrated by attention to the potential construction of what Irwin and Michael have referred to as “ethno-epistemic assemblages.” Methodological discussion is preceded by a critical review of recent public participation and “dialogue” initiatives that aim to develop scientific citizenship and more accountable technology decision-making.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barr, J. and Birke, L. (1998) Common Science? Women, Science, and Knowledge. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
2.
Becker, H. (1998) Tricks of the Trade: How to Think About Your Research While You're Doing It. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
Bielawki, E. (1996) “Inuit Indigenous Knowledge and Science in the Arctic,” in L. Nader (ed.) Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power and Knowledge, pp. 216—27. London: Routledge.
4.
Brougham, A.E. and Reed, A.W. (1963) The Reed Book of Māori Proverbs: Te Kohikohinga Whakataukī a Reed. Auckland: Reed.
5.
Bunton, R. and Petersen, A. (2005) “Genetics and Governance: an Introduction ,” in R. Bunton and A. Petersen (eds) Genetic Governance: Health, Risk and Ethics in the Biotech Era, pp. 1—27. London: Routledge.
6.
Claeson, B., Martin, E., Richardson, W., Schoch-Spana, M. and Taussig, K. (1996) “Scientific Literacy: What It Is, Why It's Important, and Why Scientists Think We Don't Have It,” in L. Nader (ed.) Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power and Knowledge, pp. 101—16. London: Routledge.
7.
Collins, P. Hill (1990) Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment. London: Routledge.
8.
Cram, F., Phillips, H., Tipene-Matua, B., Parsons, M. and Taupo, K. (2004) “A `Parallel Process'? Beginning a Constructive Conversation about a Māori Methodology,” Journal of BioethicalInquiry1(1): 14—19.
9.
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1988 [1980]) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, translation and foreword by B. Massumi. London: Athlone.
10.
Department of Health (2003) Our Inheritance, Our Future: Realising the Potential of Genetics in the NHS . London: The Stationery Office .
11.
Dryzek, J. (2000) Deliberative Democracy: Liberals, Critics and Contestations . New York: Oxford University Press .
12.
Du Plessis, R., Scott, A., Phillips, H., Cram, F., Tipene-Matua, B., Parsons, M. and Taupo, T. (2004) “The Social, Cultural, Ethical and Spiritual Implications of Genetic Testing: Preliminary Findings,” Constructive Conversations/Kōrero Whakaaetanga Research Report No. 3. URL: http://www.conversations.canterbury.ac.nz/reportspapers.htm
13.
Forgie, V., Cheyne, C. and McDermott, P. (1999) Democracy in New Zealand Local Government: Purpose and Practice. Palmerston North: School of Resources and Environmental Planning, Massey University.
14.
Fortun, K. (1998) “The Bhopal Disaster: Advocacy and Expertise ,” Science as Culture7(2): 193—216.
15.
Fung, A. and Wright, E.O. (2003) Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. London: Verso.
16.
Glasner, P. (2001) “Rights and Rituals: Why Juries Can Do More Harm than Good,” in M. Pimbert and T. Wakeford (eds) Deliberative Democracy and Citizen Empowerment. Participatory Learning and ActionNotes, vol. 40 (February) (Special Issue), pp. 43—5. London: International Institute for Environmental Development.
17.
Goven, J. (2002) “Citizens and Deficits: Problematic Paths toward Participatory Technology Assessment,” URL: http://www.ifz.tugraz.at/index_en.php/filemanager/download/125/goven.pdf (accessed 29 June 2006).
18.
Goven, J. (2003) “Deploying the Consensus Conference in New Zealand: Democracy, and De-problematisation,” Public Understanding of Science 12(4): 421—38.
19.
Grassie, B. (1995) “Quaker Epistemology: Towards a Friendly Philosophy,” Presentation to The Friends Association for Higher Education, Haverford College, June.
20.
Gusterson, H. (2000) “How Not to Construct a Radioactive Waste Incinerator,” Science, Technology and Human Values25(3): 332—51.
21.
Haraway, D. (1991) “Situated Knowledges: the Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective” in D. Haraway, Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature , pp. 183—202. New York: Routledge .
Harding, S. (1996) “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What is `Strong Objectivity'?,” in E. Fox Keller and H. Longino (eds) Feminism and Science, pp. 235—48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
Harding, S. (1998) Is Science Multi-cultural? Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
25.
Harding, S. (2000) “Democratising Philosophy of Science for Local Knowledge Movements: Issues and Challenges,” Gender, Technology and Development4(1): 1—23.
26.
Heldke, L. (1988) “Recipes for Theory Making,” Hypatia3(2): 15—29.
27.
Hipkins, R. (2004) “Methodological Overview: The Development and Implementation of the Constructive Conversations/Kōrero Whakaaetanga Contact Group Methodology,” Constructive Conversations/Kōrero Whakaaetanga Research Report No. 1. URL: http://www.conversations.canterbury.ac.nz/reportspapers.htm
28.
Independent Biotechnology Advisory Council ( 2002) Genetic Testing: An Introduction to the Technology that is Changing our Lives. Wellington: Independent Biotechnology Advisory Council.
29.
Irwin, A. (2001) “Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences,” Public Understanding of Science10: 1—18.
30.
Irwin, A. and Michael, M. (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
31.
Irwin, A. and Wynne, B., eds (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
32.
Jantzen, G. (1999) “Genetic Engineering and the Quaker Testimonies ” in Sowle Press and Bedfordshire General Meeting (eds) Inventing Heaven? Quakers Confront the Challenges of Genetic Engineering, pp. 15—20. Reading: The Sowle Press.
33.
Javitt, G.H., Stanley, E. and Hudson, K. (2004) “Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests, Government Oversight, and the First Amendment: What the Government Can Do (and Can't) Do to Protect the Public's Health,” Oklahoma Law Review57(2): 251—302.
34.
Kerr, A. (1998) “Toward a Feminist Natural Science: Linking Theory and Practice,” Women's Studies International Forum21(1): 95—109.
35.
Kerr, A. (2004) Genetics and Society: A Sociology of Disease. London and New York: Routledge.
36.
Kitzinger, J. (1994) “The Methodology of Focus Groups: the Importance of Interaction between Research Participants,” Sociology of Health and Illness16(1): 103—21.
37.
Konrad, M. (2005) Narrating the New Predictive Genetics: Ethics, Ethnography and Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
Kuletz, V. (2001) “Feminist Science Studies, Objectivity, and the Politics of Vision,” in M. Mayberry , B. Subramaniam and L. Weasel (eds) Feminist Science Studies: A New Generation, pp. 321—38. New York: Routledge.
39.
Metge, J. (2001) Kōrero Tahi Talking Together. Auckland: Auckland University Press.
40.
Molina, J. (2004) “Balancing Risks: The Framing of Human Genetics in Online News Media,” Constructive Conversations/Kōrero Whakaaetanga Research Report No. 5. URL: http://www.conversations.canterbury.ac.nz/reportspapers.htm
41.
National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability (2003) Molecular Genetic Testing in New Zealand. Wellington: National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability. URL: http://www.nhc.govt.nz/publications/Genetics/GenetictestingNZ.pdf
42.
NZ Ministry of Health (2004) Review of the Regulation of Human Tissue and Tissue-based Therapies. URL: http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/wpg_Index/-Human+Tissue+Consultation
43.
Petersen, A. (2005) “Securing our Genetic Health: Engendering Trust in UK Biobank,” Sociology of Health and Illness27(2): 272—92.
44.
Petersen, A. and Bunton, R. (2002) The New Genetics and the Public's Health. London and New York: Routledge.
45.
Raffles, R. (2002) “Intimate Knowledge,” International Social Science Journal173: 325—35.
46.
Scott, A. and Tipene-Matua, B. (2004) “Cultural Conflict and New Biotechnologies: What is at Risk?,” in K. Dew and R. Fitzgerald (eds) Challenging Science, pp. 126—45. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
47.
Scott, A., Phillips, H., Moore, A. and Du Plessis, R. (2005) “Ethics in Practice: Conversations about Biobanks,” Critical Public Health15(4): 359—68.
48.
Smith, L. Tuhiwai (1999) Decolonising Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Dunedin: University of Otago.
49.
Tesh, S. (2000) Uncertain Hazards: Environmental Activists and Scientific Proof. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
50.
Tipene-Matua, B., Phillips, H., Cram, F., Parsons, M. and Taupo, T. (2005) “Old Ways of Having New Conversations: Using Tikanga Māori Based Research Methods to Discuss Genetic Testing,” Unpublished paper, submitted to Alternative, an academic journal of Nga Pae o te Maramatanga, University of Auckland.
51.
Verran, H. (2002) “A Postcolonial Moment in Science Studies: Alternative Firing Regimes of Environmental Scientists and Aboriginal Landowners ,” Social Studies of Science32(5—6): 729—62.
52.
Warner, M. (2002) Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books.
53.
Wynne, B. (1992) “Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science,” Public Understanding of Science1: 281—304.
54.
Wynne, B. (2004) “Expanding from Risk to Bioethics in Public Discourse of New Genetics—Frying Pan to Fire?,” Keynote address, presented at the Technologies, Publics and Power Conference, Akaroa, 1—5 February.
