This article examines the visions of citizens’ ideal practices regarding technoscientific affairs in a democratic society, namely “imaginaries of model citizens,” that underlie three science and public initiatives: public understanding of science, public engagement in science, and citizen science. While imaginaries of citizens are performative and necessary to these initiatives, they are often relegated to the background. I argue that such imaginaries are the result of a complex of perceptions on the nature of science, the role of democracy in scientific activities, and the form of “democratizing” science. The imaginary of model citizens in public understanding of science is of literate citizens who should know science sufficiently, use it in daily life, and support science; in public engagement in science, the model citizen is a responsible one who should engage in the governance of technoscientific issues; and in citizen science, a contributive one who should partake in and enjoy creating scientific knowledge.
AndersonB (1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. New York, NY: Verso Books.
2.
AppaduraiA (1996) Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
3.
ÁrnasonV (2013) Scientific citizenship in a democratic society. Public Understanding of Science22(8): 927–940.
4.
BarnettJBurninghamKWalkerGCassN (2012) Imagined publics and engagement around renewable energy technologies in the UK. Public Understanding of Science21(1): 36–50.
5.
BauerMW (2014) A word from the editor on the special issue on “public engagement.” Public Understanding of Science23(1): 3.
6.
BauerMWAllumNMillerS (2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science16(1): 79–95.
7.
BonneyR (1996) Citizen science: A lab tradition. Living Bird15(4): 7–15.
8.
BonneyRCooperCBallardH (2016a) The theory and practice of citizen science: Launching a new journal. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice1(1): 1–4.
9.
BonneyRCooperCBDickinsonJKellingS (2009) Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience59(11): 977–984.
10.
BonneyRPhillipsTBBallardHLEnckJW (2016b) Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science?Public Understanding of Science25(1): 2–16.
11.
BraunKSchultzS (2010) “. . . a certain amount of engineering involved”: Constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements. Public Understanding of Science19(4): 403–419.
12.
BurgessMM (2014) From “trust us” to participatory governance: Deliberative publics and science policy. Public Understanding of Science23(1): 48–52.
ChristianoT (2018) Democracy. In:ZaltaEN (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2018 edn. Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/democracy/ (accessed 19 March 2021).
16.
CoatesRL (2022) 1992: The first issue of public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science31(3): 340–345.
Del SavioLPrainsackBBuyxA (2016) Crowdsourcing the Human Gut. Is crowdsourcing also “citizen science”?Journal of Science Communication15(3): A03.
19.
DelgadoALein KjølbergKWicksonF (2011) Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science20(6): 826–845.
20.
DickinsonJLZuckerbergBBonterDN (2010) Citizen science as an ecological research tool: Challenges and benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics41(1): 149–172.
21.
DurantJEvansGThomasG (1989) The public understanding of science. Nature340(6228): 11–14.
22.
DurantJEvansGThomasG (1992) Public understanding of science in Britain: The role of medicine in the popular representation of science. Public Understanding of Science1(2): 161–182.
23.
EitzelMVCappadonnaJLSantos-LangCDuerrREVirapongseAWestSE, et al. (2017) Citizen science terminology matters: Exploring key terms. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice2(1): 11–20.
24.
GallieWB (1955) Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society56: 167–198.
25.
GovenJ (2003) Deploying the consensus conference in New Zealand: Democracy and de-problematization. Public Understanding of Science12(4): 423–440.
26.
GuayRBirchK (2022) A comparative analysis of data governance: Socio-technical imaginaries of digital personal data in the USA and EU (2008–2016). Big Data & Society9(2): 1–13.
27.
HaklayM (2013a) Citizen science and volunteered geographic information: Overview and typology of participation. In:SuiDElwoodSGoodchildM (eds) Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge: Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) in Theory and Practice. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 105–122.
28.
HaklayM (2013b) Neogeography and the delusion of democratisation. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space45(1): 55–69.
HessDJ (2015) Publics as threats? Integrating science and technology studies and social movement studies. Science as Culture24(1): 69–82.
31.
HilgartnerSPrainsackBHurlbutJB (2017) Ethics as governance in genomics and beyond. In:FeltUFoucheRMillerCA, et al (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 823–851.
32.
HorstM (2007) Public expectations of gene therapy: Scientific futures and their performative effects on scientific citizenship. Science, Technology, & Human Values32(2): 150–171.
33.
HorstM (2008) In search of dialogue: Staging science communication in consensus conferences. In:ChengDClaessensMGascoigneT, et al (eds) Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 259–274.
34.
IrwinA (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. New York, NY: Routledge.
35.
IrwinA (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science10(1): 1–18.
36.
IrwinA (2006) The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the “new” scientific governance. Social Studies of Science36(2): 299–320.
37.
IrwinA (2014) From deficit to democracy (re-visited). Public Understanding of Science23(1): 71–76.
38.
IrwinA (2015) Citizen science and scientific citizenship: Same words different meanings? In:SchieleBMarecJLBarangerB (eds) Science Communication Today: Current Strategies and Means of Action-2015. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy, pp. 29–38.
39.
JasanoffS (2011) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
40.
JasanoffS (2015) Future imperfect: Science, technology, and the imaginations of modernity. In:JasanoffSKimS-H (eds) Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–33.
41.
JasanoffSKimS-H (2009) Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva47(2): 119–146.
42.
JolyP-B (2015) Governing emerging technologies? The need to think outside the (black) box. In:HilgartnerSMillerCHagendijkR (eds) Science and Democracy: Making Knowledge and Making Power in the Biosciences and Beyond. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 133–155.
43.
KinchyA (2017) Citizen science and democracy: Participatory water monitoring in the Marcellus shale fracking boom. Science as Culture26(1): 88–110.
44.
LaugkschRC (2000) Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education84(1): 71–94.
45.
LewensteinB (2016) Can we understand citizen science?Journal of Science Communication15(1): E1–E5.
46.
LezaunJSonerydL (2007) Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science16(3): 279–297.
47.
MarresN (2016) Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics. London: Springer.
48.
MarrisC (2015) The construction of imaginaries of the public as a threat to synthetic biology. Science as Culture24(1): 83–98.
49.
McNeilMArribas-AyllonMHaranJMackenzieATuttonR (2016) Conceptualizing imaginaries of science, technology, and society. In:FeltUFoucheRMillerCA, et al (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 4th edition.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 435–463.
50.
MertonRK (1942) A note on science and democracy. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology1: 115–126.
51.
MichaelM (2002) Comprehension, apprehension, prehension: Heterogeneity and the public understanding of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values27(3): 357–378.
52.
MillerJD (1983) Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus112(2): 29–48.
53.
MillerJD (1998) The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science7(3): 203–223.
54.
MillerS (2001) Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science10(1): 115–120.
55.
NielsenAPLassenJSandøeP (2011) Public participation: Democratic ideal or pragmatic tool? The cases of GM foods and functional foods. Public Understanding of Science20(2): 163–178.
56.
NowotnyH (2014) Engaging with the political imaginaries of science: Near misses and future targets. Public Understanding of Science23(1): 16–20.
57.
OttingerG (2017) Reconstructing or reproducing? Scientific authority and models of change in two traditions of citizen science. In:TyfieldDLaveRRandallsS, et al. (eds) The Routledge Handbook of the Political Economy of Science. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 351–363.
58.
Royal Society (1985) Public Understanding of Science. London: Royal Society.
59.
RudekTJ (2022) Capturing the invisible. Sociotechnical imaginaries of energy. The critical overview. Science and Public Policy49(2): 219–245.
60.
SadowskiJBendorR (2019) Selling smartness: Corporate narratives and the smart city as a sociotechnical imaginary. Science, Technology, & Human Values44(3): 540–563.
61.
SelinCRawlingsKCde Ridder-VignoneKSadowskiJAllendeCAGanoG, et al. (2017) Experiments in engagement: Designing public engagement with science and technology for capacity building. Public Understanding of Science26(6): 634–649.
62.
SimisMJMaddenHCacciatoreMAYeoSK (2016) The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?Public Understanding of Science25(4): 400–414.
63.
SismondoS (2020) Sociotechnical imaginaries: An accidental themed issue. Social Studies of Science50(4): 505–507.
64.
SmithE (2009) Imaginaries of development: The Rockefeller foundation and rice research. Science as Culture18(4): 461–482.
65.
SpicerHNadolnyDFraserE (2020) Going squirrelly: Evaluating educational outcomes of a curriculum-aligned citizen science investigation of non-native squirrels. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice5(1): 141–113.
66.
StephensNAtkinsonPGlasnerP (2013) Institutional imaginaries of publics in stem cell banking: The cases of the UK and Spain. Science as Culture22(4): 497–515.
67.
StilgoeJLockSJWilsdonJ (2014) Why should we promote public engagement with science?Public Understanding of Science23(1): 4–15.
68.
SudmannA (ed.) (2019) The Democratization of Artificial Intelligence: Net Politics in the Era of Learning Algorithms. Bielefeld: Transcript Publishing.
69.
TaylorC (2002) Modern social imaginaries. Public Culture14(1): 91–124.
70.
ThomasGDurantJ (1987) Why should we promote the public understanding of science? In:ShorlandM (ed.) Scientific Literacy Papers. Oxford: Rewley House, pp. 1–14.
71.
TrachtmanLE (1981) The public understanding of science effort: A critique. Science, Technology, & Human Values6(3): 10–15.
72.
TrumbullDJBonneyRBascomDCabralA (2000) Thinking scientifically during participation in a citizen-science project. Science Education84(2): 265–275.
73.
UK House of Lords (2000) Science and Society (Report of House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology, chair Patrick Jenkin; HL Paper 38). London: The Stationery Office.
VincentBB (2014) The politics of buzzwords at the interface of technoscience, market and society: The case of “public engagement in science.” Public Understanding of Science23(3): 238–253.
76.
WarfBSuiD (2010) From GIS to neogeography: Ontological implications and theories of truth. Annals of GIS16(4): 197–209.
77.
WelshIWynneB (2013) Science, scientism and imaginaries of publics in the UK: Passive objects, incipient threats. Science as Culture22(4): 540–566.
78.
WynneB (1982) Rationality and Ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and Nuclear Decisions in Britain. London: British Society for the History of Science.
79.
WynneB (1991) Knowledges in context. Science, Technology, & Human Values16(1): 111–121.
80.
WynneB (1992a) Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science1(3): 281–304.
81.
WynneB (1992b) Public understanding of science research: New horizons or hall of mirrors?Public Understanding of Science1(1): 37–43.
82.
WynneB (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—Hitting the notes, but missing the music?Public Health Genomics9(3): 211–220.
83.
YearleyS (2005) Making Sense of Science: Understanding the Social Study of Science. London: Sage.
84.
ZimanJ (1991) Public understanding of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values16(1): 99–105.
