Re-visioning public engagement with emerging technology: A digital methods experiment on ‘vertical farming’

Abstract

This article presents the results of a public engagement experiment on a project trialling ‘vertical farming’, an emerging technology addressing urban food issues. The experiment developed within an issue mapping project, analysing debates about vertical farming on the digital platforms, Twitter and Instagram. The article presents a software tool designed to engage ‘offline’ publics in the issue mapping process, using images collected from Instagram. We describe testing this software tool with visitors to exhibitions of vertical farming in two science and technology museums. Our findings highlight the predominance of commercial publicity about vertical farming on Twitter and Instagram and the organisation of public attention around technological novelty. The article discusses the challenges such publicity dynamics pose to mapping issues on platforms. We suggest some ways digital methods might contribute to public engagement with technologies, like vertical farming, that are a focus of organised commercialised innovation.

Keywords

digital methods emerging technologies issue mapping participation platforms public engagement vertical farming

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Birch

Chiappetta

Artyushina

(2020) The problem of innovation in technoscientific capitalism: Data rentiership and the policy implications of turning personal digital data into a private asset. Policy Studies 41: 468–487.

Birkbak

Carlsen

HAB

(2016) The public and its algorithms: Comparing and experimenting with calculated publics. In: Amoore

Piotukh

(eds) Algorithmic Life: Calculative Devices in the Age of Big Data. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 21–34.

Callon

Lascoumes

Barthe

(2001) Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Callon

Law

Rip

(1986) Qualitative scientometrics. In: Callon

Law

Rip

(eds) Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. London: Macmillan Press, pp. 103–123.

Chilvers

Kearnes

(2015) Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics. Abingdon: Routledge.

Chilvers

Pallett

Hargreaves

(2018) Ecologies of participation in socio-technical change: The case of energy system transitions. Energy Research & Social Science 42: 199–210.

Cox

(2012) The vertical farming scam. Counter Punch. Available at: https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/11/the-vertical-farming-scam/ (accessed 14 June 2019)

Despommier

(2011) The Vertical Farm: Feeding the World in the 21st Century. New York, NY: Picador.

Elam

Bertilsson

(2003) Consuming, engaging and confronting science: The emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. European Journal of Social Theory 6(2): 233–251.

10.

Germer

Sauerborn

Asch

de Boer

Schreiber

Weber

, et al. (2011) Skyfarming an ecological innovation to enhance global food security. Journal for Consumer Protection and Food Safety 6(2): 237–251.

11.

Goodman

Minner

(2019) Will the urban agricultural revolution be vertical and soilless? A case study of controlled environment agriculture in New York City. Land Use Policy 83: 160–173.

12.

Gugganig

(2018) Analysis of outcome of the activity, Deliverable 07 of EIT FOOD Cultivating Engagement: A citizen participation forum on vertical farming. Project Report. Available at: https://www.mcts.tum.de/en/research/cultivating-engagement-a-citizen-participation-forum-on-vertical-farming/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

13.

Hamm

(2015) Feeding cities – with indoor vertical farms? In Food Climate Research Network Blog. Available at: https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/feeding_cities_with_indoor_vertical_farms (accessed 25 January 2021).

14.

Helmond

(2015) The platformization of the web: Making web data platform ready. Social Media + Society 1(2): 205630511560308.

15.

Horst

Michael

(2011) On the shoulders of idiots: Re-thinking science communication as ‘event’. Science as Culture 20(3): 283–306.

16.

Jacomy

Venturini

Heymann

Bastian

(2014) ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi software. PLoS One 9(6): e98679.

17.

Jasanoff

(2003) Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy 41(3): 223–244.

18.

Joss

Durant

(1995) Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. London: NMSI Trading Ltd.

19.

Leydesdroff

(1989) Words and co-words as indicators of intellectual organization. Research Policy 18(4): 209–223.

20.

Lezaun

Marres

Tironi

(2016) Experiments in participation. In: Felt

Fouché

Miller

Smith-Doerr

(eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 195–221.

21.

Lezaun

Soneryd

(2007) Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science 16(3): 279–297.

22.

Madsen

(2015) Tracing data – Paying attention. In: Kornberger

Justesen

Madsen

Mouritsen

(eds) Making Things Valuable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 257–279.

23.

Madsen

Munk

(2019) Experiments with a data-public: Moving digital methods into critical proximity with political practice. Big Data & Society 6(1): 2053951718825357.

24.

Marres

(2012) Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

25.

Marres

(2015) Why map issues? On controversy analysis as a digital method. Science, Technology, & Human Values 40(5): 655–686.

26.

Marres

Gerlitz

(2016) Interface methods: Renegotiating relations between digital social research, STS and sociology. The Sociological Review 64(1): 21–46.

27.

Marres

Lezaun

(2011) Materials and devices of the public: An introduction. Economy and Society 40(4): 489–509.

28.

Moats

(2019) From media technologies to mediated events: A different settlement between media studies and science and technology studies. Information, Communication & Society 22(8): 1165–1180.

29.

Nees

Gugganig

(2018) Comparative study: Citizen participation on ‘high-tech food production’, Deliverable 04 (Part 1) of EIT FOOD Cultivating Engagement: A citizen participation forum on vertical farming. Project Report. Available at: https://www.mcts.tum.de/en/research/cultivating-engagement-a-citizen-participation-forum-on-vertical-farming/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

30.

Pearce

Özkula

Greene

Teeling

Bansard

Omena

, et al. (2020) Visual cross-platform analysis: Digital methods to research social media images. Information, Communication & Society 23(2): 161–180.

31.

Perriam

Birkbak

Freeman

(2020) Digital methods in a post-API environment. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 23(3): 277–290.

32.

Pinstrup-Andersen

(2018) Is it time to take vertical indoor farming seriously? Global Food Security 17: 233–235.

33.

Rieder

(2015) Visual Tagnet Explorer. Digital Methods Initiative, University of Amsterdam. Available at: https://tools.digitalmethods.net/netvizz/instagram/

34.

Rieder

Borra

(2014) Programmed method: Developing a toolset for capturing and analyzing tweets. Aslib Journal of Information Management 66(3): 262–278.

35.

Rip

(1986) Controversies as informal technology assessment. Knowledge 8(2): 349–371.

36.

Rogers

(2013) Digital Methods. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

37.

Rogers

(2018) Otherwise engaged: Social media from vanity metrics to critical analytics. International Journal of Communication 12(732942): 450–472.

38.

Rogers

Marres

(2000) Landscaping climate change: A mapping technique for understanding science and technology debates on the World Wide Web. Public Understanding of Science 9(2): 141–163.

39.

Rogers

Sánchez-Querubín

Kil

(2015) Issue Mapping for an Ageing Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

40.

Stirling

(2008) ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values 33(2): 262–294.

41.

Thorpe

Gregory

(2010) Producing the post-fordist public: The political economy of public engagement with science. Science as Culture 19(3): 273–301.

42.

Venturini

Bounegru

Gray

Rogers

(2018a) A reality check(list) for digital methods. New Media & Society 20(11): 4195–4217.

43.

Venturini

Jacomy

Bounegru

Gray

(2018b) Visual network exploration for data journalists. In: Eldridge

(eds) The Routledge Handbook of Developments in Digital Journalism Studies. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 287–305.

44.

Venturini

Ricci

Mauri

Kimbell

Meunier

(2015) Designing controversies and their publics. Design Issues 31(3): 74–87.

45.

Wilsdon

Willis

(2004) See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.

46.

Wonneberger

Hellsten

Jacobs

(2020) Hashtag activism and the configuration of counterpublics: Dutch animal welfare debates on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society. Epub ahead of print 4 February. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2020.1720770.

47.

Wynne

(2006) Risk as globalising ‘democratic’ discourse? Framing subjects and citizens. In: Leach

Scoones

Wynne

(eds) Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement. London: Zed Books, pp. 66–82

48.

Wynne

(2007) Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 1(1): 99–110.

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.

0.00 MB

0.50 MB

0.94 MB