This exploratory article considers the implications of a particular genre – YouTube videos of iPhone destruction – for the Citizen Science and Public Understanding of Science/Public Engagement with Science and Technology. Situating this genre within a broader TV tradition of ‘destructive testing’ programmes, there is a description of the forms of destruction visited upon the iPhone, and an analysis of the features shared by the videos (e.g. mode of address, enactments of the experiment). Drawing on the notion of the ‘idiotic’, there is a discussion of the genre that aims to treat its evident lack of scientific and citizenly ‘seriousness’ productively. In the process of this discussion, the notions of ‘feral science’ and ‘antithetical citizenship’ are proposed, and some of their ramifications for Citizen Science and Public Understanding of Science/Public Engagement with Science and Technology presented.
BarbaletJM (2001) Emotion, Social Theory, and Social Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BennettL (2014) Tracing textual poachers: Reflections on the development of fan studies and digital fandom. Journal of Fandom Studies2(1): 5–20.
9.
BonneyRBallardHJordanRet al. (2009) Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Washington, DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education.
10.
BonneyRPhillipsTBallardHMcCallieEPhillipsTShirkJet al. (2016) Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science?Public Understanding of Science25(1): 2–16.
11.
BowkerGCStarSL (1999) Sorting Things Out. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
CallonMRabeharisoaV (2003) Research in the wild and the shaping of new social identities. Technology in Society25: 193–204.
13.
CallonMLascoumbesPBartheY (2001) Acting in an Uncertain World. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
14.
CalvertJSchyfterP (2017) What can science and technology studies learn from art and design? Reflections on ‘Synthetic Aesthetics. Social Studies of Science47(2): 195–215.
15.
ConnellRW (2005) Masculinities, 2nd edn.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
16.
CooperCBJDickinsonTPhillipsRBonneyR. (2007) Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecology and Society12(2): 11. Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art11/
17.
CrainRCooperCDickinsonJL (2014) Citizen science: A tool for integrating studies of human and natural systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources39: 641–665.
18.
DaviesSR (2016) Participation as pleasure: Citizenship and science communication. In: ChilversJKearnesM (eds) Remaking Participation. Abingdon; New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 162–177.
19.
DaviesSR (2017) Characterizing hacking: Mundane engagement in US hacker and makerspaces. Science, Technology and Human Values43(2):171–197.
20.
DickinsonJLZuckerbergBBonterDN (2010). Citizen science as an ecological research tool: Challenges and benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics41: 149–172.
21.
ElamMBertilssonM (2003) Consuming, engaging and confronting science: The emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. European Journal of Social Theory6: 233–251.
22.
FraserM (2010) Facts, ethics and event. In: JenseCBRödjeK (eds) Deleuzian Intersections: Science, Technology and Anthropology. New York, NY; Oxford: Berghahn Books, pp. 57–82.
23.
FreitagAPfefferMJ (2013) Process, not product: Investigating recommendations for improving citizen science ‘success’. PLoS ONE8(5): e64079.
24.
HalewoodM (2017) Situated speculation as a constraint on thought. In: WilkieASavranskyMRosengartenM (eds) Speculative Research. London: Routledge, pp. 52–63.
HarreR (ed.) (1986) The Social Construction of Emotions. Oxford: Blackwell.
27.
IrwinA (1995) Citizen Science. London: Routledge.
28.
JenkinsH (1992) Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. London: Routledge.
29.
KerrAGarforthL (2016) Affective practices, care and bioscience: A study of two laboratories. The Sociological Review64(1): 3–20.
30.
Land-ZandstraAMDevileeJLSnikFBuurmeijerFvan den BroekJM (2016) Citizen science on a smartphone: Participants’ motivations and learning. Public Understanding of Science25(1): 45–60.
31.
LatourBWoolgarS (1979) Laboratory Life. London: SAGE.
32.
LezaunJSonerydL (2007) Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science16(3): 279–297.
33.
LieMSorensenKH (1996) Making technology Our Own? In LieMSorensenKH (eds) Making Technology Our Own?Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
34.
MarresN (2007) The issues deserve more credit: Pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. Social Studies of Science37: 759–780.
35.
MeehanER (2000) Leisure or labor? Fan ethnography and political economy. In: HagenIWaskoJ (eds) Consuming Audiences?Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, pp. 71–92.
36.
MolA (2002) The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
37.
O’ConnellJ (1993) Metrology: The creation of universality by the circulation of particulars. Social Studies of Science23: 129–173.
38.
OttingerG (2010) Buckets of resistance: Standards and the effectiveness of citizen science. Science, Technology and Human Values35(2): 244–277.
39.
PinchT (1993) ‘Testing – One, two, three … testing!’: Toward a sociology of testing. Science, Technology and Human Values18(1): 25–41.
40.
PrainsackB (2014) Understanding participation: The ‘citizen science’ of genetics. In: PrainsackBSchicktanzSWerner-FelmayerG (eds) Genetics as Social Practice. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 147–164.
41.
PritchardHGabrysJ (2016) From citizen sensing to collective monitoring: Working through the perceptive and affective problematics of environmental pollution. GeoHumanities2(2): 354–371.
42.
Puig de la BellacasaM (2011) Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things. Social Studies of Science41(1): 85–106.
43.
StengersI (2005) The cosmopolitical proposal. In: LatourBWebelP (eds) Making Things Public. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
44.
TempleM (2006) Dumbing down is good for you. British Politics1: 257–273.
45.
WoolleyJPMcGowanMLTeareHJACoathupVFishmanJRSetterstenRAJret al. (2016) Citizen science or scientific citizenship? Disentangling the uses of public engagement rhetoric in national research initiatives.BMC Medical Ethics17: 33. DOI:10.1186/s12910–016–0117–1.
46.
WynneB (2008) Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology, and Society1(1): 1–13.
