Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T19:03:41.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Understanding Public Dialogue as an Embedded Democratic Innovation in UK Climate Governance

from Part I - Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2018

By
Helen Pallett
Edited by
Bruno Turnheim ,
Paula Kivimaa  and
Frans Berkhout
Bruno Turnheim
Affiliation:
King's College London
Paula Kivimaa
Affiliation:
University of Sussex
Frans Berkhout
Affiliation:
King's College London
Get access

Summary

This chapter examines the growing emphasis on the role research-industry collaboratives play in shaping transformational change. Reflecting on over two decades of experimentation, the chapter showcases how research-industry collaboratives have adapted, evolved and re-shaped the type and extent of experimentation within the Australian urban water sector. The chapter reveals how research-industry experimentation broadened from ‘pure’ experimentation (i.e. hypothesis-testing) and linear innovation knowledge transfer processes, towards more collaborative, learning-by-doing approaches, which work towards co-producing knowledge and providing platforms for building collective action. The multi-functional nature of the research-industry collaborative was revealed as a valuable model for broadening and embedding the reach of new knowledge and practices. Key governance factors shaping future transdisciplinary collaborative initiatives and research-industry collaboratives looking to go beyond ‘traditional’ experimentation are outlined.
Type
Chapter
Information
Innovating Climate Governance
Moving Beyond Experiments
 , pp. 85 - 102
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beck, U. (1994). The reinvention of politics: Towards a Theory of reflexive modernization. In Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S., Reflexive Modernization Politics Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. 1–55. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Berkhout, F. (2002). Technological regimes, path dependency and the environment. Global Environmental Change, 12, 1–4.Google Scholar
Bickerstaff, K., Lorenzoni, I., Jones, M., and Pidgeon, N. (2010). Locating scientific citizenship: The institutional contexts and cultures of public engagement. Science Technology & Human Values, 35(4), 474–500.Google Scholar
Bogner, A. (2012). The paradox of participation experiments. Science, Technology & Human Values, 37(5), 506–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. B. (2009). Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions and Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Callon, M., Lascoumbes, P., and Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. Translated by Burchell, G.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chilvers, J. (2008a). Deliberating competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33(2), 155–185.Google Scholar
Chilvers, J. (2008b). Environmental risk, uncertainty, and participation: Mapping an emergent epistemic community. Environment and Planning A, 40(12), 2990–3008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chilvers, J., and Kearnes, M. (2016a). Participation in the making: Rethinking public engagement in co-productionist terms. In Chilvers, J., and Kearnes, M. (eds.), Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics. London: Routledge, 31–63.Google Scholar
Chilvers, J., and Kearnes, M. (2016b). Remaking participation: Towards reflexive engagement. In Chilvers, J., and Kearnes, M. (eds.), Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics. London: Routledge, 261–288.Google Scholar
Cooke, B., and Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: The New Tyranny? London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Davies, G. (2010). Where do experiments end? Geoforum, 41(5), 667–670.Google Scholar
Dawson, P., and Daniel, L. (2010). Understanding social innovation: A provisional framework. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), 9.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and Its Problems, New York: H. Holt.Google Scholar
Elam, M., Reynolds, L., Soneryd, L., Sundqvist, G., and Szerszynski, B. (2007). Mediators of Issues and Mediators of Process. Brussels.Google Scholar
Ezrahi, Y. (1990). The Descent of Icarus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fagerberg, J. (2006). Innovation: A guide to the literature. In Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., and Nelson, R. R. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–26.Google Scholar
Felt, U., and Wynne, B. (2007). Taking the European Knowledge Society Seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research. Brussels: European Commission, 96.Google Scholar
Galison, P. (1987). How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristoliean Society, 56, 167–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gisler, P., and Schicktanz, S. (2009). Introduction: Ironists, reformers, or rebels? Reflections on the role of the social sciences in the process of science policy making. Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, 5, 5–17.Google Scholar
Gottweis, H., Braun, K., and PAGANINI Consortium (2007). Participatory Governance and Insitutional Innovation. Final Report. Accessed 25/10/2017, www.univie.ac.at/LSG/paganini/finals_pdf/WP8_FinalReport.pdfGoogle Scholar
Gross, M. (2010a). Ignorance and Surprise: Science, Society and Ecological Design, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gross, M. (2010b). The public proceduralization of contingency: Bruno Latour and the formation of collective experiments. Social Epistemology, 24(1), 63–74.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
HM Treasury (2004). Science and Innovation Investment Framework: 2004–2014. Norwich: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Hinchliffe, S., Kearnes, M., Degen, M., and Whatmore, S. (2005). Urban wild things: A cosmopolitical experiment. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 23(5), 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House of Lords (2000). Science and Society: The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. Third Report.Google Scholar
Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Irwin, A. (2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2004). The idiom of co-production. In States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order. Jasanoff, S., ed. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 1–12.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2011). Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 621–638.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Latour, B. (2011). From multiculturalism to multinaturalism: What rules of method for the new socio-scientific experiments. Nature and Culture, 6(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Laurent, B. (2011). Technologies of democracy: Experiments and demonstrations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 649–666.Google Scholar
Lezaun, J. (2007). A market of opinions: The political epistemology of focus groups. Sociological Review, 55, 130–151.Google Scholar
Lezaun, J., and Soneryd, L. (2007). Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science, 16(3), 279–297.Google Scholar
Lorimer, J., and Driessen, C. (2014). Wild experiments at the Oostvaardersplassen: Rethinking environmentalism in the Anthropocene. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 39, 169-181Google Scholar
Marres, N. (2007). The issues deserve more credit: Pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. Social Studies of Science, 37(5), 759–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marres, N., and Lezaun, J. (2011). Materials and devices of the public: An introduction. Economy and Society, 40(4), 489–509.Google Scholar
Michael, M. (2011). ‘What are we busy doing?’: Engaging the Idiot. Science, Technology & Human Values, 37(5), 528–554.Google Scholar
Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munton, R. (2003). Deliberative democracy and environmental decision-making. In Berkhout, F., Leach, M., and Scoones, I. (eds.), Negotiating Environmental Change: New Perspectives from Social Science. Cheltenham, UK: Edward, Elgar, 109–136.Google Scholar
Osborne, T. (2004). On mediators: Intellectuals and the ideas trade in the knowledge society. Economy and Society, 33(4), 430–447.Google Scholar
Owens, S. (2000). ‘Engaging the public’: Information and deliberation in environmental policy. Environment and Planning A, 32(7), 1141–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallett, H. (2015). Public participation organizations and open policy: A constitutional moment for British democracy? Science Communication, 37(6), 769–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallett, H., and Chilvers, J. (2013). A decade of learning about publics, participation and climate change: Institutionalising reflexivity? Environment and Planning A, 45(5), 1162–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) (2001). Open Channels: Public dialogue in Science and Technology. London: POST. www.parliament.uk/documents/post/pr153.pdfGoogle Scholar
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) (2002). Public Dialogue On Science & Technology, London: POST. Accessed, 25 October 2017, www.parliament.uk/documents/post/pn189.pdfGoogle Scholar
Peck, J., and Theodore, N. (2015). Fast Policy: Experimental Statecraft at the Thresholds of Neoliberalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Pieczka, M., and Escobar, O. (2013). Dialogue and science: Innovation in policy-making and the discourse of public engagement in the UK. Science and Public Policy, 40(1), 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinch, T. J., and Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., and Pinch, T. J. (eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 17–50.Google Scholar
Pol, E., and Ville, S. (2009). Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term? Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(6), 878–885.Google Scholar
Schot, J., and Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technology Forecasting and Social Change, 54(1996), 251–268.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A., and Krohn, W. (2011). Experimenting with the concept of experiment: Probing the epochal break. In Nordmann, A., Radder, H., and Schiemann, G. (eds.), Science Transformed? Debating Claims of an Epochal Break. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 119–134.Google Scholar
Seyfang, G., and Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics, 16, 584–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Soneryd, L. (2016). Technologies of participation and the making of technologised futures. In Chilvers, J., and Kearnes, M. (eds.), Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics. London: Routledge, 144–161.Google Scholar
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., and Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580.Google Scholar
Szerszynski, B. (2005). Beating the Unbound: Political Theatre in the Laboratory Without Walls. In Giannachi, G., and Stewart, N. (eds.), Performing Nature: Explorations in Ecology and the Arts. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 181–197.Google Scholar
Thorpe, C. (2010). Participation as post-Fordist politics: Demos, new labour, and science policy. Minerva, 48(4), 389–411.Google Scholar
Thorpe, C., and Gregory, J. (2010). Producing the post-Fordist public: The political economy of public engagement with science. Science as Culture, 19(3), 273–301.Google Scholar
Voβ, J.-P. (2016). Reflexively engaging with technologies of participation: Constructive assessment for public participation methods. In Chilvers, J., and Kearnes, M. (eds.), Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics. London: Routledge, 238–260.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×