Lay people are increasingly invited to deliberate on emerging technologies in public engagement settings. Analogies appear frequently in these contexts and are commonly understood as means of making sense of and forming an opinion on emerging technologies. This article provides an alternative perspective, which conceptualizes analogies as rhetorical devices employed to achieve specific functions. A repertoire of rhetorical roles is traced in four public engagement settings on nanotechnology: (1) analogies suggesting acceptance/rejection of specific nano-applications, (2) anticipatory and alerting analogies constructed to plausibilize and prevent futures, (3) killer analogies closing debate and arguments, and (4) “nano is not like nano” moves that distinguish between application domains. Each role points to specific dimensions and tensions of public engagement processes. Overall, the findings reveal that lay people use analogies to make arguments and enforce framings rather than to just make sense of nanotechnology, which refutes the assumption of a public opinion deficit.
ANAP (2010) Austrian Nanotechnology Action Plan. Vienna: Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management. Available at: http://www.nanoinitiative.at/1560_EN.pdf
2.
AustinJL (1962) How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
3.
BilligM (1987) Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BilligM (1991) Ideology and Opinions: Studies in Rhetorical Psychology. London: SAGE.
5.
BostromA (2008) Lead is like mercury: Risk comparisons, analogies and mental models. Journal of Risk Research11(1): 99–117.
6.
BurriRV (2009) Coping with uncertainty: Assessing nanotechnologies in a citizen panel in Switzerland. Public Understanding of Science18(5): 498–511.
7.
CacciatoreMAScheufeleDACorleyEA (2011) From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science20(3): 385–404.
8.
ClaisseFDelvenneP (2015) Building on anticipation: Dystopia as empowerment. Current Sociology63(2): 155–169.
9.
ClarkCH (1958) Brainstorming: The Dynamic New Way to Create Successful Ideas. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
10.
DaviesSR (2011) How we talk when we talk about nano: The future in laypeople’s talk. Futures43(3): 317–326.
11.
DortmansKSwierstraT (2013) Maintaining reasonableness: How facilitators can improve the quality of public deliberation on new and emerging science and technology. In: KonradKVan LenteHCoenenCDijkstraAMilburnC (eds) Shaping Emerging Technologies: Governance, Innovation, Discourse. Berlin: IOS Press/AKA, pp. 21–34.
FeltU (2015) Keeping technologies out: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the formation of Austria’s technopolitical identity. In: JasanoffSSang-HyungK (eds) Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, pp. 103–125.
14.
FeltUBarbenDIrwinAJolyP-BRipAStirlingAet al. (2013) Science in Society: Caring for Our Futures in Turbulent Times (ESF policy briefing 50). Strasbourg: European Science Foundation.
15.
FeltUSchumannSSchwarzCGStrassnigM (2014) Technology of imagination: A card-based public engagement method for debating emerging technologies. Qualitative Research14(2): 233–251.
16.
GentnerDGentnerDR (1983) Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In: GentnerDStevensAL (eds) Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 99–129.
17.
GentnerDMarkmanAB (1997) Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist52(1): 45–56.
18.
Horlick-JonesTWallsJKitzingerJ (2007) Bricolage in action: Learning about, making sense of, and discussing issues about genetically modified crops and food. Health, Risk & Society9(1): 83–103.
19.
JeeBDUttalDHSpiegelADiamondJ (2013) Expert–novice differences in mental models of viruses, vaccines, and the causes of infectious disease. Public Understanding of Science24(2) 241–256.
20.
LynchJ (2009) Does analogical reasoning affect political attitudes? Evidence from survey experiments. Doctoral Thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
21.
MacnaghtenPDaviesSRKearnesM (2015) Understanding public responses to emerging technologies: A narrative approach. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. DOI: 10.1080/1523908X.2015.1053110.
22.
MacnaghtenPKearnesMBWynneB (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences?Science Communication27(2): 268–291.
23.
MarcuAGasparRRutsaertPSeibtBFletcherDVerbekeWet al. (2015) Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: Lay sense-making around synthetic meat. Public Understanding of Science24(5): 547–562.
MichaelM (1996) Ignoring science: Discourses of ignorance in the public understanding of science. In: IrwinAWynneB (eds) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 107–125.
26.
MichaelMBrownN (2004) The meat of the matter: Grasping and judging xenotransplantation. Public Understanding of Science13(4): 379–397.
27.
MolA (2008) The Logic of Care: Health and the Problem of Patient Choice. London; New York, NY: Routledge.
28.
MorganGMFischhoffBBostromAAtmanCJ (2002) Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
MoscoviciS (1984) The phenomenon of social representations. In: FarrRMMoscoviciS (eds) Social Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–70.
30.
MulkayM (1993) Rhetorics of hope and fear in the great embryo debate. Social Studies of Science23(4): 721–742.
31.
MusolffA (2004) Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian.
32.
MyersG (2004) Matters of Opinion: Talking about Public Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
PotterJ (1996a) Attitudes, social representations and discursive psychology. In: WetherellM (ed.) Identities, Groups and Social Issues. London: SAGE, pp. 119–173.
34.
PotterJ (1996b) Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: SAGE.
35.
PotterJWetherellM (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: SAGE.
36.
Rogers-HaydenTPidgeonN (2007) Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering’s inquiry. Public Understanding of Science16(3): 345–364.
37.
SchönDA (1979) Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In: OrtonyA (ed.) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 255–283.
38.
SchwarzCG (2014) Nano Is Like . . . The Role of Analogies in Public Engagement with Nanotechnology in Austria. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Science and Technology Studies, University of Vienna, Vienna.
39.
StilgoeJLockSJWilsdonJ (2014) Why should we promote public engagement with science?Public Understanding of Science23(1): 4–15.
40.
SwierstraTRipA (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics1(1): 3–20.
41.
Te KulveHKonradKAlvial PalavicinoCWalhoutB (2013) Context matters: Promises and concerns regarding nanotechnologies for water and food applications. NanoEthics7(1): 17–27.
42.
VeenMGremmenBte MolderHvan WoerkumC (2011) Emergent technologies against the background of everyday life: Discursive psychology as a technology assessment tool. Public Understanding of Science20(6): 810–825.
43.
WetherellMPotterJ (1992) Mapping the Language of Racism: Discourse and the Legitimation of Exploitation. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
44.
WibeckVDahlgrenMAÖbergG (2007) Learning in focus groups: An analytic dimension for enhancing focus group research. Qualitative Research7(2): 249–267.
45.
WilsdonJWillisR (2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos Medical Publishing.
WyattS (2004) Danger! Metaphors at work in economics, geophysiology, and the internet. Science, Technology & Human Values29(2): 242–261.
48.
WynneB (1995) Public understanding of science. In: JasanoffSMarkleGEPetersenJCPinchT (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 361–388.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
