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.
BirchKChiappettaMArtyushinaA (2020) The problem of innovation in technoscientific capitalism: Data rentiership and the policy implications of turning personal digital data into a private asset. Policy Studies41: 468–487.
2.
BirkbakACarlsenHAB (2016) The public and its algorithms: Comparing and experimenting with calculated publics. In: AmooreLPiotukhV (eds) Algorithmic Life: Calculative Devices in the Age of Big Data. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 21–34.
3.
CallonMLascoumesPBartheY (2001) Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
CallonMLawJRipA (1986) Qualitative scientometrics. In: CallonMLawJRipA (eds) Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. London: Macmillan Press, pp. 103–123.
ChilversJPallettHHargreavesT (2018) Ecologies of participation in socio-technical change: The case of energy system transitions. Energy Research & Social Science42: 199–210.
DespommierDD (2011) The Vertical Farm: Feeding the World in the 21st Century. New York, NY: Picador.
9.
ElamMBertilssonM (2003) Consuming, engaging and confronting science: The emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. European Journal of Social Theory6(2): 233–251.
10.
GermerJSauerbornJAschFde BoerJSchreiberJWeberG, et al. (2011) Skyfarming an ecological innovation to enhance global food security. Journal for Consumer Protection and Food Safety6(2): 237–251.
11.
GoodmanWMinnerJ (2019) Will the urban agricultural revolution be vertical and soilless? A case study of controlled environment agriculture in New York City. Land Use Policy83: 160–173.
HelmondA (2015) The platformization of the web: Making web data platform ready. Social Media + Society1(2): 205630511560308.
15.
HorstMMichaelM (2011) On the shoulders of idiots: Re-thinking science communication as ‘event’. Science as Culture20(3): 283–306.
16.
JacomyMVenturiniTHeymannSBastianM (2014) ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi software. PLoS One9(6): e98679.
17.
JasanoffS (2003) Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy41(3): 223–244.
18.
JossSDurantJ (1995) Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. London: NMSI Trading Ltd.
19.
LeydesdroffL (1989) Words and co-words as indicators of intellectual organization. Research Policy18(4): 209–223.
20.
LezaunJMarresNTironiM (2016) Experiments in participation. In: FeltUFouchéRMillerCSmith-DoerrL (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 195–221.
21.
LezaunJSonerydL (2007) Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science16(3): 279–297.
22.
MadsenAK (2015) Tracing data – Paying attention. In: KornbergerMJustesenLMadsenAKMouritsenJ (eds) Making Things Valuable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 257–279.
23.
MadsenAKMunkAK (2019) Experiments with a data-public: Moving digital methods into critical proximity with political practice. Big Data & Society6(1): 2053951718825357.
24.
MarresN (2012) Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
25.
MarresN (2015) Why map issues? On controversy analysis as a digital method. Science, Technology, & Human Values40(5): 655–686.
26.
MarresNGerlitzC (2016) Interface methods: Renegotiating relations between digital social research, STS and sociology. The Sociological Review64(1): 21–46.
27.
MarresNLezaunJ (2011) Materials and devices of the public: An introduction. Economy and Society40(4): 489–509.
28.
MoatsD (2019) From media technologies to mediated events: A different settlement between media studies and science and technology studies. Information, Communication & Society22(8): 1165–1180.
PearceWÖzkulaSMGreeneAKTeelingLBansardJSOmenaJJ, et al. (2020) Visual cross-platform analysis: Digital methods to research social media images. Information, Communication & Society23(2): 161–180.
31.
PerriamJBirkbakAFreemanA (2020) Digital methods in a post-API environment. International Journal of Social Research Methodology23(3): 277–290.
32.
Pinstrup-AndersenP (2018) Is it time to take vertical indoor farming seriously?Global Food Security17: 233–235.
RiederBBorraE (2014) Programmed method: Developing a toolset for capturing and analyzing tweets. Aslib Journal of Information Management66(3): 262–278.
35.
RipA (1986) Controversies as informal technology assessment. Knowledge8(2): 349–371.
36.
RogersR (2013) Digital Methods. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
RogersR (2018) Otherwise engaged: Social media from vanity metrics to critical analytics. International Journal of Communication12(732942): 450–472.
38.
RogersRMarresN (2000) Landscaping climate change: A mapping technique for understanding science and technology debates on the World Wide Web. Public Understanding of Science9(2): 141–163.
39.
RogersRSánchez-QuerubínNKilA (2015) Issue Mapping for an Ageing Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
40.
StirlingA (2008) ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values33(2): 262–294.
41.
ThorpeCGregoryJ (2010) Producing the post-fordist public: The political economy of public engagement with science. Science as Culture19(3): 273–301.
42.
VenturiniTBounegruLGrayJRogersR (2018a) A reality check(list) for digital methods. New Media & Society20(11): 4195–4217.
43.
VenturiniTJacomyMBounegruLGrayJ (2018b) Visual network exploration for data journalists. In: EldridgeS (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Developments in Digital Journalism Studies. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 287–305.
44.
VenturiniTRicciDMauriMKimbellLMeunierA (2015) Designing controversies and their publics. Design Issues31(3): 74–87.
45.
WilsdonJWillisR (2004) See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.
46.
WonnebergerAHellstenIRJacobsSH (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.
WynneB (2006) Risk as globalising ‘democratic’ discourse? Framing subjects and citizens. In: LeachMScoonesIWynneB (eds) Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement. London: Zed Books, pp. 66–82
48.
WynneB (2007) Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal1(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.
