From Deficit to Democracy (Re-visited)

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

Taking as its frame the last twenty years of policy-making and academic discussion regarding public engagement with science (PES), this short article offers a personal evaluation of the balance between failure and achievement, and reflects upon some of the other contributions to the special issue. Put in the most general terms, have we been moving forwards or in circles? The persistence of public engagement efforts and existence of constructive science–social science collaborations are noted. However, the ambiguous character of the institutional embrace of social science and the instrumental role accorded to PES research remain as significant issues. Following a retrospective discussion of the ‘deficit’ model of science–public relations, some conclusions are drawn concerning the future needs of both reflective practice and practical reflection.
Taking as its frame the last twenty years of policy-making and academic discussion regarding public engagement with science (PES), this short article offers a personal evaluation of the balance between failure and achievement, and reflects upon some of the other contributions to the special issue. Put in the most general terms, have we been moving forwards or in circles? The persistence of public engagement efforts and existence of constructive science–social science collaborations are noted. However, the ambiguous character of the institutional embrace of social science and the instrumental role accorded to PES research remain as significant issues. Following a retrospective discussion of the ‘deficit’ model of science–public relations, some conclusions are drawn concerning the future needs of both reflective practice and practical reflection.
SprogEngelsk
TidsskriftPublic Understanding of Science
Vol/bind23
Udgave nummer1
Sider71-76
ISSN0963-6625
DOI
StatusUdgivet - jan. 2014

Emneord

  • Deficit theory
  • Public engagement with science
  • Science and social science
  • Science and technology studies
  • Scientific governance

Citer dette

@article{c15ef577ab49435ab6bea387512c47b9,
title = "From Deficit to Democracy (Re-visited)",
abstract = "Taking as its frame the last twenty years of policy-making and academic discussion regarding public engagement with science (PES), this short article offers a personal evaluation of the balance between failure and achievement, and reflects upon some of the other contributions to the special issue. Put in the most general terms, have we been moving forwards or in circles? The persistence of public engagement efforts and existence of constructive science–social science collaborations are noted. However, the ambiguous character of the institutional embrace of social science and the instrumental role accorded to PES research remain as significant issues. Following a retrospective discussion of the ‘deficit’ model of science–public relations, some conclusions are drawn concerning the future needs of both reflective practice and practical reflection.",
keywords = "Deficit theory, Public engagement with science, Science and social science, Science and technology studies, Scientific governance",
author = "Alan Irwin",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0963662513510646",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "71--76",
journal = "Public Understanding of Science",
issn = "0963-6625",
publisher = "Sage Publications Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

From Deficit to Democracy (Re-visited). / Irwin, Alan.

I: Public Understanding of Science, Bind 23, Nr. 1, 01.2014, s. 71-76.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - From Deficit to Democracy (Re-visited)

AU - Irwin,Alan

PY - 2014/1

Y1 - 2014/1

N2 - Taking as its frame the last twenty years of policy-making and academic discussion regarding public engagement with science (PES), this short article offers a personal evaluation of the balance between failure and achievement, and reflects upon some of the other contributions to the special issue. Put in the most general terms, have we been moving forwards or in circles? The persistence of public engagement efforts and existence of constructive science–social science collaborations are noted. However, the ambiguous character of the institutional embrace of social science and the instrumental role accorded to PES research remain as significant issues. Following a retrospective discussion of the ‘deficit’ model of science–public relations, some conclusions are drawn concerning the future needs of both reflective practice and practical reflection.

AB - Taking as its frame the last twenty years of policy-making and academic discussion regarding public engagement with science (PES), this short article offers a personal evaluation of the balance between failure and achievement, and reflects upon some of the other contributions to the special issue. Put in the most general terms, have we been moving forwards or in circles? The persistence of public engagement efforts and existence of constructive science–social science collaborations are noted. However, the ambiguous character of the institutional embrace of social science and the instrumental role accorded to PES research remain as significant issues. Following a retrospective discussion of the ‘deficit’ model of science–public relations, some conclusions are drawn concerning the future needs of both reflective practice and practical reflection.

KW - Deficit theory

KW - Public engagement with science

KW - Science and social science

KW - Science and technology studies

KW - Scientific governance

U2 - 10.1177/0963662513510646

DO - 10.1177/0963662513510646

M3 - Journal article

VL - 23

SP - 71

EP - 76

JO - Public Understanding of Science

T2 - Public Understanding of Science

JF - Public Understanding of Science

SN - 0963-6625

IS - 1

ER -