This article introduces and reflects on a group discussion method for public engagement exercises and for qualitative research into citizens’ practices of developing and negotiating positions on emerging technologies. The method consists of card sets and a specific choreography in order to facilitate the development of citizens’ imaginations on nanotechnology and society in the Austrian context. Drawing on concepts from Science and Technology Studies, we discuss the method’s design as well as how citizens in four discussion groups appropriate the setting. The cards’ materiality, their content and the discussion choreography invites participants to move between individual and collective positioning work, to creatively engage with the elements available and imagine how an emerging technology – in our case nanotechnology – could develop in future. For the analyst, it allows reconstructing participants’ ordering, assessment and projection practices. The article concludes with reflections on the potential and limits of the method and how it could be employed as a tool for qualitative research more broadly.
AkrichM (1992) The de-scription of technical objects. In: LawJ (ed.) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 205–224.
3.
BarbenDFisherESelinC. (2007) Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration. In: HackettEJAmsterdamskaOLynchM (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 979–1000.
4.
BennettI (2008) Developing plausible nano-enabled products. In: FisherESelinCWetmoreJM(eds) The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society. New York: Springer, 149–155.
5.
BilligM (1996) Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BloorMFranklandJThomasM. (2001) Focus Groups in Social Research. London: Sage.
7.
BowmanDMHodgeGA (2007) Nanotechnology and public interest dialogue: some international observations. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society27(2): 118–132.
8.
BrownNMichaelM (2003) A sociology of expectations: retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management15(1): 3–18.
9.
ChangJCClussPARanieriL. (2005) Health care interventions for intimate partner violence: what women want. Women’s Health Issues15(1): 21–30.
10.
CollingridgeD (1980) The Social Control of Technology. New York: St Martin’s Press.
11.
DaviesSR (2011) How we talk when we talk about nano: the future in laypeople’s talk. Futures43(3): 317–326.
12.
DelgadoAKjølbergKLWicksonF (2011) Public engagement coming of age: from theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science20(6): 826–845.
13.
FarnsworthJBoonB (2010) Analysing group dynamics within the focus group. Qualitative Research10(5): 605–624.
14.
FeltU (2010) Leben in Nanowelten: zur Ko-Produktion von Nano & Gesellschaft. In: LuchtPErlemannMRuiz BenE (eds) Technologisierung gesellschaftlicher Zukünfte. Nanotechnologien in wissenschaftlicher, politischer und öffentlicher Praxis. Freiburg: Centaurus, 19–37.
15.
FeltUFochlerM (2010) Machineries for making publics: inscribing and describing publics in public engagement. Minerva48(3): 219–238.
16.
FeltUWynneB (2007) Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously. Luxembourg: European Commission.
17.
FeltUFochlerMMagerA. (2008) Visions and versions of governing biomedicine: narratives on power structures, decision-making and public participation in the field of biomedical technology in the Austrian context. Social Studies of Science38(2): 233–255.
18.
FeltUFochlerMMüllerA. (2009) Unruly ethics: on the difficulties of a bottom-up approach to ethics in the field of genomics. Public Understanding of Science18(3): 354–371.
19.
GarfinkelH (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
20.
GoodinRDryzekJ (2006) Deliberative impact: the macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics & Society34(2): 219–244.
21.
HackettEJRhotenDR (2009) The snowbird charrette: integrative interdisciplinary –collaboration in environmental research design. Minerva47(4): 407–440.
22.
HagendijkRIrwinA (2006) Public deliberation and governance: engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva44(2): 167–184.
23.
HorstMIrwinA (2010) Nations at ease with radical knowledge: on consensus, consensusing and false consensusness. Social Studies of Science40(1): 106–126.
24.
IrwinA (2006) The politics of talk: coming to terms with the ‘New Scientific Governance’. Social Studies of Science36(2): 299–320.
25.
KitzingerJ (1994) The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness16(19): 103–121.
26.
LawJ (2004) After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. New York and London: Routledge.
27.
LawJHassardJ (1999) Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
28.
MacnaghtenPDaviesSR (2010) Narratives of mastery and resistance: lay ethics of nanotechnology. NanoEthics4(2): 141–151.
29.
MacnaghtenPKearnesMBWynneB (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences?Science Communication27(2): 268–291.
30.
MarresN (2005) No issue, no public: democratic deficits after the displacement of politics. Doctoral Dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Netherlands.
31.
MichaelM (2004) On making data social: heterogeneity in sociological practice. Qualitative Research4(1): 5–23.
32.
MyersG (1998) Displaying opinions: topics and disagreement in focus groups. Language in Society27(1): 85–111.
33.
ReckwitzA (2002) Toward a theory of social practices: a development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory5(2): 243–263.
34.
RipAte KulveH (2008) Constructive technology assessment and socio-technical scenarios. In: FisherESelinCWetmoreJM (eds) The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume 1: Presenting Futures. New York: Springer, 49–70.
35.
SchatzkiT (1996) Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
StarSLGriesemerJR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘Translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science19(3): 387–420.
37.
SuttonB (2011) Playful cards, serious talk: a qualitative research technique to elicit women’s embodied experiences. Qualitative Research11(2): 177–196.
38.
TürkVKnowlesHWalbaumH. (2005) Nanologue scenarios: the future of nanotechnology: we need to talk. Available at: http://www.nanologue.net/
39.
WarrDJ (2005) ‘It was fun … but we don’t usually talk about these things’: analyzing sociable interaction in focus groups. Qualitative Inquiry11(29): 200–225.
40.
WilsdonJWillisR (2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.
41.
WynneB (1992) Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science1(1): 281–304.
42.
WynneB (1995) Public understanding of science. In: JasanoffSMarkleGPetersenJC. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 361–388.
