Art is increasingly used to engage publics on emerging and controversial technologies, but we still know little about what works in art-based engagement and why. To investigate what art can do for public engagement, we systematically reviewed academic work published from 2000 to 2018 about the effect of art on organized public engagement. We used the dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation as an analytical framework to identify what outcomes are achieved and what processes contribute to those outcomes. The 30 included studies showed that art mainly supported engagement by (1) reaching wider audiences, (2) fueling individual reflection, and (3) making visible how technologies come into being and interact with the world. With due consideration of the risks of instrumentalization, future research should empirically and reflexively investigate the outcomes and methodologies of art-based engagement, especially concerning collective reflection and change.
Altamirano-AllendeCSelinC (2016) Seeing the city: Photography as a place of work. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences6: 460–469.
2.
AmooreLHallA (2010) Border theatre: On the arts of security and resistance. Cultural Geographies17(3): 299–319.
3.
AndersonK (2015) Ethics, ecology and the future: Art and design face the Anthropocene. Leonardo48(4): 338–347.
4.
AugerJ (2013) Speculative design: Crafting the speculation. Digital Creativity24(1): 11–35.
5.
AugerJH (2014) Living with robots: A speculative design approach. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction3(1): 20–42.
6.
BallSLeachBBousfieldJSmithPMarjanovicS (2021) Arts-Based Approaches to Public Engagement with Research: Lessons From a Rapid Review. Santa Monica, CA and Cambridge, UK: RAND Corporation. DOI: 10.7249/rra194-1
7.
BauerABognerAFuchsD (2021) Rethinking societal engagement under the heading of responsible research and innovation: (Novel) requirements and challenges. Journal of Responsible Innovation8(3): 342–363.
8.
BendorRMaggsDPeakeRRobinsonRWilliamsS (2017) The imaginary worlds of sustainability: Observations from an interactive art installation. Ecology and Society22(2): 17.
9.
BettenAWBroerseJEKupperF (2017) Unravelling dynamics of emotional and moral meaning making in an art/science initiative—the case of “Trust Me I’m an Artist.” In: Betten AW The Art of Reflection: Towards meaningful deliberation of synthetic biology. Amsterdam: Proefschrift Maken, pp. 181–203.
10.
BhowmikSAcharyaKDiazL (2013) Light is history: A community participated museum installation in Helsinki. International Journal of the Inclusive Museum6(1): 145–157.
11.
BraunKKönningerS (2018) From experiments to ecosystems? Reviewing public participation, scientific governance and the systemic turn. Public Understanding of Science27(6): 674–689.
12.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
13.
BreyPAE (2012) Anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies. Nanoethics6(1): 1–13.
14.
CarvalhoANunesJA (2013) Technology, methodology and intervention: Performing nanoethics in Portugal. Nanoethics7(2): 149–160.
15.
ChilversJMatthewK (2020) Remaking participation in science and democracy. Science Technology and Human Values45(3): 347–380.
16.
CoxSMKazubowski-HoustonMNiskerJ (2009) Genetics on stage: Public engagement in health policy development on preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Social Science and Medicine68(8): 1472–1480.
17.
DaviesSR (2014) Knowing and loving: Public engagement beyond discourse. Science and Technology Studies27(3): 90–110.
18.
DaviesSRHorstM (2016) Science Communication: Culture, Identity and Citizenship. London: Springer.
19.
DaviesSRMcCallieESimonssonELehrJLDuensingS (2009) Discussing dialogue: Perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public Understanding of Science18(3): 338–353.
20.
DaviesSRSelinCGanoGPereiraÂG (2013) Finding futures: A spatiovisual experiment in participatory engagement. Leonardo46(1): 76–77.
21.
de Ridder-VignoneKD (2012) Public engagement and the art of nanotechnology. Leonardo45(5): 433–438.
22.
ElamM (2005) When scientists meet film-makers: Inventing a Swedish approach to public engagement with biotechnology. Acta Sociologica48(3): 237–251.
23.
HarmonSH (2015) Not foresighting, not answering: Using graphic fiction to interrogate social and regulatory issues in biomedicine. In: GiddensT (ed.) Graphic Justice: Intersections of Comics and Law. New York: Routledge, pp. 71–88.
24.
HolmerHBDisalvoCSengersP, et al (2015) Constructing and constraining participation in participatory arts and HCI. International Journal of Human Computer Studies74: 107–123.
25.
KilkerJ (2017) Annie and the Shaman: Exploring data via provocative artifacts. Leonardo50(2): 186–187.
26.
KnippelsMCPJSeveriensSEKlopT (2007) Education through fiction: Acquiring opinion-forming skills in the context of genomics. International Journal of Science Education31(15): 2057–2083.
27.
KoskiKHolstJ (2017) Exploring vaccine hesitancy through an artist–scientist collaboration: Visualizing vaccine-critical parents’ health beliefs. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry14(3): 411–426.
28.
KupperF (2017) The theatrical debate: Experimenting with technologies on stage. In: van dePoel IAsveldLMehosDC (eds) New Perspectives on Technology in Society: Experimentation beyond the Laboratory. London: Routledge, pp. 80–102.
29.
LastA (2012) Mutable matter: Using sensory methods in public engagement with nanotechnology. Leonardo45(2): 132–139.
30.
LesenAERoganABlumMJ (2016) Science communication through art: Objectives, challenges, and outcomes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution31(9): 657–660.
31.
McMullenSCWinklerF (2018) 20/X: Visuality, representation and epistemology in the age of intelligent seeing machines. Leonardo51(1): 71–74.
32.
MarmorK (2008) Bird watching: An introduction to amateur satellite spotting. Leonardo41(4): 317–323.
33.
NiemanA (2005) Welcome to the neighbourhood: Belonging to the universe. Leonardo38(5): 383–388.
34.
NiskerJMartinDKBluhmRDaarAS (2006) Theatre as a public engagement tool for health-policy development. Health Policy78(2–3): 258–271.
35.
NovakD (2017) Project Fukushima! Performativity and the politics of festival in post-3/11 Japan. Anthropological Quarterly90(1): 11.
36.
OwenRStilgoeJMacnaghtenPGormanMFisherEGustonD (2013) A framework for responsible innovation. In: OwenRBessantJHeintzM (eds) Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 27–50.
37.
PérezEEfstathiouSSwierstraT (2019) Getting our hands dirty with technology: The role of the performing arts in technological development. Peripeti16(307): 104–121.
38.
PowellMColinMKleinmanDLDelborneJAndersonA (2011) Imagining ordinary citizens? Conceptualized and actual participants for deliberations on emerging technologies. Science as Culture20(1): 37–70.
39.
PuigJCarusiACassinelliAPinelPHoelAS (2018) A-me and BrainCloud: Art-science interrogations of localization in neuroscience. Leonardo51(2): 111–117.
40.
ReinsboroughM (2020) Art-science collaboration in an EPSRC/BBSRC-funded synthetic biology UK research centre. Nanoethics14(1): 93–111.
41.
RobinsonPAMacnaghtenPBanksSBickerstethJKennedyARichardsonY, et al. (2014) Responsible scientists and a citizens’ panel: New storylines for creative engagement between science and the public. Geographical Journal180(1): 83–88.
42.
RoeserSAlfanoVNevejanC (2018) The role of art in emotional-moral reflection on risky and controversial technologies: The case of BNCI. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice21(2): 275–289.
43.
RoeserSPeschU (2016) An emotional deliberation approach to risk. Science Technology and Human Values41(2): 274–297.
44.
RoeserSTaebiBDoornN (2020) Geoengineering the climate and ethical challenges: What we can learn from moral emotions and art. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy23(5): 641–658.
45.
RotoloDHicksDMartinBR (2015) What is an emerging technology?Research Policy44(10): 1827–1843.
46.
SalterCBurriRVDumitJ (2017) Art, design and performance. In: FeltUFouchéRMillerCASmith-DoerrL (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. London: MIT Press, pp. 139–164.
47.
SleenhoffS (2016) Unexpected encounters: Public engagement with a bio-based economy via bio-art. In: SleenhoffS (ed.) Emotions Matter for Public Engagement in the Emerging Biobased Economy. Alblasserdam: Ridderprint BV, The Netherlands, pp. 69–86.
48.
SmithDHZellerF (2017) The death and lives of hitchBOT: The design and implementation of a hitchhiking robot. Leonardo50(1): 77–78.
49.
StirlingA (2008) “Opening up” and “closing down”: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science Technology and Human Values33(2): 262–294.
50.
SturgisP (2014) On the limits of public engagement for the governance of emerging technologies. Public Understanding of Science23(1): 38–42.
51.
SwierstraTte MolderH (2012) Risk and soft impacts. In: RoeserSHillerbrandRSandinPPetersonM (eds) Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1049–1066.
52.
ToondersWVerhoeffRPZwartH (2016) Performing the future. Science & Education25(7–8): 869–895.
53.
WieringaNFSwartJAAMaplesT, et al (2011) Science theatre at school: Providing a context to learn about socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, Part B1(1): 71–96.
54.
WilbanksR (2017) Real vegan cheese and the artistic critique of biotechnology. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society3: 180–205.
55.
YanevaARabesandratanaTMGreinerB (2009) Staging scientific controversies: A gallery test on science museums’ interactivity. Public Understanding of Science18(1): 79–90.
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.
