Governmental and institutional policy making in a number of countries has embedded public engagement strategies as a primary channel to connect citizens with scientific and technological innovation. Robotics is emerging as a key site for such new technological activity and its applications are likely to be increasingly notable in our lives in coming years. Robotics researchers are investing considerable time and effort in “engaging” publics. Concentrating on the findings of 24 qualitative interviews with those actively organizing or engaging publics, across 11 public engagement activities focused on the robotics field within the United Kingdom, this article explores their conceptions of “public engagement” and its benefits and constraints. The results suggest that while the language of engagement has been embraced there remain practical, conceptual, and individual influences on the level of engagement which is experienced.
Bara. (2007). Results for the annual survey of UK robot installations for 2007. British automation and robot association. Coventry, England: University of Warwick. Retrieved from http://www.bara.org.uk/info/statistics/Industrial_Robot_Facts_2007.pdf
2.
Bell, L. ( 2008). Engaging the public in technology policy: A new role for science museums. Science Communication, 29, 386-398.
3.
Breazeal, C., Brooks, A., Gray, J., Hancher, M., McBean, J., Stiehl, D., & Strickon, J. ( 2003). Interactive robot theatre. Communications of the ACM, 46, 76-84.
4.
Bucchi, M. ( 2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57-76). Abingdon, England: Routledge.
5.
Burchell, K. ( 2007). Empiricist selves and contingent "others": The performative function of the discourse of scientists working in conditions of controversy . Public Understanding of Science, 16, 145-162.
6.
Burchell, K., Franklin, S., & Holden, K. ( 2009). Public culture as professional science: Final report of the ScoPE Project (Scientists on Public Engagement: From Communication to Deliberation?). London, England: Centre for the Study of Bioscience, Biomedicine, Biotechnology and Society . Retrieved from http://www.2.lse.ac.uk/BIOS/research/scope/pdf/scope_final_report.pdf
7.
Burningham, K., Barnett, J., Carr, A., Clift, R., & Wehrmeyer, W. ( 2007). Industrial constructions of publics and public knowledge: A qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 23-43.
8.
Chilvers, J. ( 2008). Deliberating competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practices. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33, 421-451.
9.
Classens, M. ( 2008). European trends in science communication. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens , T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 27-38). New York, NY : Springer.
10.
Coffey, A., Renold, E., Dicks, B., Soyinka, B., & Mason, B. ( 2006). Hypermedia ethnography in educational settings: Possibilities and challenges. Ethnnography and Education, 1, 15-30.
11.
Cook, G., Pieri, E., & Robbins, P.T. ( 2004). The scientists think and the public feels: Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse & Society, 15, 433-449.
12.
Corbyn, Z. ( 2008). Nottingham raises eyebrows over definition of "public engagement."Times Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=403234
13.
Davies, S.R. ( 2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29, 413-434.
14.
Davies, S.R., McCallie, E., Simonsson, E., Lehr, J.L., & Duensing, S. ( 2009). Discussing dialogue: Perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 338-353.
15.
Epstein, S. ( 1996). Impure science, AIDS, activism and the politics of knowledge . Berkeley: University of California Press.
16.
Felt, U., & Fochler, M. ( 2008). The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation . Science and Public Policy, 35, 489-499.
17.
Felt, U., & Wynne, B. ( 2007). Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously: Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research, European Commission. Brussels, Belgium: Directorate General for Research Science, Economy and Society. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/european-knowledge-society_en.pdf
18.
Hagendijk, R., & Irwin, A. ( 2006). Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minevra, 44, 167-184.
19.
Healey, P. ( 2004). Scientific connoisseurs and other intermediaries: Mavens, pundits, and critics. Swindon, England: ESRC. Retrieved from http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/about/CI/CP/Social_Sciences/issue59/mavens.aspx
20.
Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J. ( 2002). Analysing interaction: Video, ethnography and situated conduct. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitative research in action (pp. 99-121). London, England: Sage.
21.
Holliman, R., & Jensen, E. ( 2009). (In)authentic sciences and (im)partial publics: (Re) constructing the science outreach and public engagement agenda. In R. Holliman, E. Whitelegg , E. Scanlon, S. Smidt, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media (pp. 35-52). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
22.
Horlick-Jones, T., Rowe, G., & Walls, J. ( 2007). Citizen engagement processes as information systems: The role of knowledge and the concept of translation quality. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 259-278.
23.
Horst, M. ( 2008). In search of dialogue: Staging science communication in consensus conferences. In D. Cheng , M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi, (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 259-274). New York, NY: Springer.
24.
International Federation of Robotics. (2009 ). World Robotics 2009 Service Robots (Executive Summary). Frankfurt, Germany: IFR Statistical Department. Retrieved from http://www.worldrobotics.org/index.php
25.
Irwin, A. ( 2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 1-18.
26.
Irwin, A. ( 2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the "new" scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36, 299-320.
27.
Irwin, A. ( 2009). Moving forwards or in circles? Science communication and scientific governance in an age of innovation. In R. Holliman, E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, S. Smidt , & J. Thomas (Eds.), Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for public engagement and popular media (pp. 3-17). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
28.
Irwin, A., & Michael, M. ( 2003). Science, social theory and public knowledge. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
29.
Jensen, P., Rouquier, J., Kreimer, P., & Croissant, Y. ( 2008). Scientists who engage with society perform better academically . Science and Public Policy, 35, 527-541.
30.
Kasperson, R.E. ( 2006). Rerouting the stakeholder express. Global Environmental Change, 16, 320-322.
31.
Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S., & Tutton, R. ( 2007). Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science, 37, 385-411.
32.
McCallie, E., Bell, L., Lohwater, T., Falk, J.H., Lehr, J.L., Lewenstein, . . . Wiehe, B. (2009). Many experts, many audiences: Public engagement with science and informal science education (A CAISE Enquiry Group Report). Washington, DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE). Retrieved from http://caise.insci.org/uploads/docs/public_engagement_with_science.pdf
33.
Mori. (2000). The role of scientists in public debate. London, England: Wellcome Trust. Retrieved from http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_peda/documents/web_document/wtd003425.pdf
34.
Pearson, G., Pringle, S.M., & Thomas, J.N. ( 1997). Scientists and the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 6, 279-289.
35.
Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T.L. ( 2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29, 242-263.
36.
Powell, M., & Colin, M. ( 2009). Participatory paradoxes: Facilitating citizen engagement in science and technology from the top-down? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 29, 325-342.
37.
Rcuk. (2009). What is public engagement? Retrieved from http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/scisoc/peupdate.pdf
38.
Riise, J. ( 2008). Bringing science to the public. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens , T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 301-309). New York, NY : Springer.
39.
Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. ( 1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research . In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analysing qualitative data (pp. 173-194). London, England: Routledge.
40.
Royal Society. (2006). Science communication: Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. London, England: Author. Retrieved from http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=3180
41.
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L.J. ( 2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation . Science, Technology & Human Values, 25, 3-29.
42.
Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N.F. ( 2008). Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: Reliability, validity and limitations. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 419-441.
43.
Rowe, G., Marsh, R., & Frewer, L.J. ( 2004). Evaluation of a deliberative conference. Science, Technology & Human Values, 29, 88-121.
44.
Schäfer, M.S. ( 2009). From public understanding to public engagement: An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Science Communication , 30, 475-505.
45.
Sullivan, F.R. ( 2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 373-394.
46.
Treise, D., & Weigold, M.F. ( 2002). Advancing science communication: A survey of science communicators. Science Communication, 23, 310-322.
47.
Trench, B. ( 2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne , J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 119-135). New York, NY: Springer.
48.
Trevelyan, J. ( 1999). Redefining robotics for the new millennium. International Journal of Robotics Research, 18, 1211-1223.
49.
TwoCan Associates. (2009). An evaluation of the process and impact of patient and public involvement in the advisory groups of the UK clinical research collaboration (Final Report). London, England: UK Clinical Research Collaboration. Retrieved from http://www.ukcrc.org/index.aspx?o=1541
50.
Ward, V., Howdle, P., & Hamer, S. ( 2008). You and your body: A case study of bioscience communication at the University of Leeds. Science Communication, 30, 177-208.
51.
Wilkinson, C., Bultitude, K., & Dawson, E. (IN PRESS). "Younger people have like more of an imagination, no offence": Public perspectives on public engagement. Public Understanding of Science.
52.
Wilsdon, J., & Willis, J. ( 2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London, England: Demos . Retrieved from http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Seethroughsciencefinal.pdf?1240939425
53.
Wynne, B. ( 1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay divide. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity (pp. 44-83). London , England: Sage.
54.
Young, N., & Matthews, R. ( 2007). Experts understanding of the public: Knowledge control in a risk controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 123-144.
