Abstract
This chapter investigates the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of the idealist and cynical purposes of public engagement. Scholars in the field of public engagement with science have noted the influence these two camps have made on our modern conception of public engagement. Having laid out the basic contours of these debates we then attend to the implications of the dominant ideas of what a “public” is and how it relates to theoretical and philosophical discussions. We then turn to studies of publics, counterpublics, and vernacular rhetoric. Together these constitute a compelling case for a method of public engagement with science that engages actually existing publics as they communicate and deliberate “in the wild.”
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Asen, Robert. 2005. Discourse Theory of Citizenship. Quarterly Journal of Speech 90 (2): 189–211.
Dewey, John. 1927. The Public and Its Problems. Chicago: Gateway Books.
Durant, Darrin. 2008. Accounting for Expertise: Wynne and the Autonomy of the Lay Public Actor. Public Understanding of Science 17 (1): 5–20.
———. 2011. Models of Democracy in Social Studies of Science. Social Studies of Science 41 (5): 691–714.
Ercolini, Gina L. 2016. Kant’s Philosophy of Communication. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
Felt, Ulrike, and Maximillian Fochler. 2008. The Bottom-Up Meanings of the Concept of Public Participation in Science and Technology. Science and Public Policy 35 (7): 489–499.
Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 1998. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1995. Reconciliation Through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism. The Journal of Philosophy 92 (3): 109–131.
Hauser, Gerald A. 1999. Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
———. 2007. Vernacular Discourse and the Epistemic Dimension of Public Opinion. Communication Theory 17: 333–339.
Howard, Robert Glenn. 2010. The Vernacular Mode: Locating the Non-instituitional in the Practice of Citizenship. In Public Modalities: Rhetoric, Culture, Media, and the Shape of Public Life, ed. Daniel C. Brouwer, 240–261. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Jones, Richard. 2007. What Have We Learned from Public Engagement? Nature Nanotechnology 2 (5): 262–263.
Kant, Immanuel. 2006. An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment? In Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History, ed. Pauline Kleingeld, trans. David L. Colclasure. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kleinman, Daniel. 2000. Democratization of Science and Technology. In Science, Technology, and Democracy, ed. Daniel Kleinman, 139–165. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Lippmann, Walter. 1927. The Phantom Public. New Brunswick: The Macmillan Company.
McCormick, Samuel. 2003. Earning One’s Inheritance: Rhetorical Criticism, Everyday Talk, and the Analysis of Public Discourse. Quarterly Journal of Speech 89 (2): 109–131.
Michael, Mike. 2009. Publics Performing Publics: Of PiGs, PiPs and Politics. Public Understanding of Science 18 (5): 617–631.
Mouffe, Chantal. 1999. Deliberative Democracy or Agonist Pluralism? Social Research 66 (3): 745–758.
———. 2009. The Limits of Jon Rawls’ Pluralism. Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory 56 (118): 1–14.
Ono, Kent A., and John M. Sloop. 1995. The Critique of Vernacular Discourse. Communication Monographs 62 (1): 19–46.
Pidgeon, Nick, and Tee Rogers-Hayden. 2007. Opening Up Nanotechnology Dialogue with the Publics: Risk Communication or ‘Upstream Engagement’? Health, Risk & Society 9 (2): 191–201.
Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Stilgoe, Jack. 2007. Nanodialogues: Experiments in Public Engagement with Science. London: Demos.
Warner, Michael. 2005. Public and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books.
Wynne, Brian. 2008. Elephants in the Rooms Where Publics Encounter ‘Science’?: A Response to Darrin Durant, ‘Accounting for Expertise: Wynne and the Autonomy of the Lay Public’. Public Understanding of Science 17 (1): 21–33.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lerner, A.S., Gehrke, P.J. (2018). Publics and Counterpublics of Engagement. In: Organic Public Engagement. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64397-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64397-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64396-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64397-7
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)