Team:Wageningen UR/DiscoveryFestival Communication

From 2012.igem.org

Revision as of 01:21, 27 September 2012

What can we learn from the interactions between iGEM teams and the public?

Since the beginning of this century the public is more and more involved in the innovation of emerging technologies. Organisations organise for example public debates, science cafés and focus groups (Veen, te Molder, Gremmen, & van Woerkum, 2012). Public engagement is seen as a way to increase trust in science (Dijkstra & Gutteling, 2012) and as a way to decrease public’s exaggerated hopes and fears of emerging technologies like synthetic biology (Schmidt et al., 2009). To improve the interaction between scientists and the public several studies are conducted to understand how scientists see the relation with the public. Results show that scientists still talk about one-way communication, not about dialogues (Cook, Pieri, & Robbins, 2004; Davies, 2008). Studies also show that scientists appreciate the opinion of non-scientists but still prioritize scientific information (Mogendorff, te Molder, Gremmen, & van Woerkum, 2012; Motion & Doolin, 2007).

Scientists are concerned about this prioritization and argue that the concerns of the public about impacts of the emerging technologies are not discussed when talking about the technology. There is only attention for the objective, neutral and factual or “hard” impacts (Swierstra & te Molder, 2012).

Other studies show that scientists and experts shift their identity when interacting with the public, thus displaying personal involvement (Padmos, Mazeland, & Te Molder, 2006). Other studies show that scientists present themselves as ordinary persons first before distancing themselves by which they show their superiority over non-experts (Dyer & Keller-Cohen, 2000).

For my thesis I will analyse interactions between iGEM team members and the public. I will analyse interactions during the [http://www.discoveryfestival.nl/ Discovery festival], the [http://www.transnatural.nl/226-Di.-18-september- Transnatural festival] and the Meeting of Young Minds during the iGEM Jamboree. In order to get a better understanding of the interaction between scientists and the public. Discursive psychology will be used for the analysis. Discursive psychology tries to understand which actions are performed in interactions and is able to identify obstacles in these interactions (Veen et al., 2012).

The aim of my research is to get a better understanding of how it is possible that the concerns of the public are not discussed during interactions. I will try to find out which actions in talk are responsible for this. My main focus will be on the way identities are used in interactions and what influence this has on concerns and impacts discussed. With my thesis I want to create a better understanding of the influence of actions in talk on topics discussed in interactions between scientists and the public to improve public engagement activities. I will conduct this research for my master thesis, part of the master Applied Communication Science. During my research I am supervised by [http://www.com.wur.nl/UK/Staff/TeMolder/ Prof. dr. H.F.M. te Molder]. Are you curious about my results or would you like to have more information? Please let me know: paulien.poelarends@wur.nl or twitter: @ppoelarends

'The Discussion' by Annette Andela, 2011.

Bibliography

• 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(4).

• Davies, S. R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29(4), 413-434. doi: 10.1177/1075547009316222

• Dijkstra, A. M., & Gutteling, J. M. (2012). Communicative Aspects of the Public-Science Relationship Explored: Results of Focus Group Discussions About Biotechnology and Genomics. Science Communication, 34(3), 363-391. doi: Doi 10.1177/1075547011417894

• Dyer, J., & Keller-Cohen, D. (2000). The Discursive Construction of Professional Self Through Narratives of Personal Experience. Discourse Studies, 2(3), 283-304.

• Mogendorff, K., te Molder, H., Gremmen, B., & van Woerkum, C. (2012). “Everyone May Think Whatever They Like, but Scientists . . .”: Or How and to What End Plant Scientists Manage the Science-Society Relationship. Science Communication(March 2012), 1-25.

• Motion, J., & Doolin, B. (2007). Out of the laboratory: scientists' discursive practices in their encounters with activists. Discourse Studies, 9(1), 63-85. doi: Doi 10.1177/1461445606072110

• Padmos, H., Mazeland, H., & Te Molder, H. (2006). On doing being personal: Citizen talk as an identity-suspending device in public debates on GMOs. In H. Hausendorf & A. Bora (Eds.), Analysing Citizenship Talk: Social Positioning in Political and Legal Decision-making Procedures (pp. 276-295). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

• Schmidt, M., Ganguli-Mitra, A., Torgersen, H., Kelle, A., Deplazes, A., & Biller-Andorno, N. (2009). A priority paper for the societal and ethical aspects of synthetic biology. Systems and Synthetic Biology 3, 3-7.

• Swierstra, T., & te Molder, H. F. M. (2012). Risk and Soft Impacts. In S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of Risk Theory. 2012: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

• Veen, M., te Molder, H., Gremmen, B., & van Woerkum, C. (2012). Competing Agendas in Upstream Engagement Meetings Between Celiac Disease Experts and Patients. Science Communication, 34(4), 460-486. doi: Doi 10.1177/1075547011427975