Abstract
This chapter provides an introduction to the Danish landscape of science communication, which is built on a deeply rooted culture of equality and anti-elitism. Within this cultural tradition, citizens have a moral right to question the testimony of authorities and to counter it with their own experiences of ordinary life. The tradition is described by a short introduction to one of its most influential proponents, the nineteenth century priest, poet and politician, N.F.S. Grundtvig, who promoted a particular educational philosophy in which citizens were expected to be able to reach consensus through deliberation about the life to lead in common. The teachings of Grundtvig were an important factor in the establishment of Danish deliberative institutions, such as the Danish Board of Technology and the Danish Council of Ethics, but the same anti-elitism has also been invoked in arguments to close them down. Describing how a change in government in 2001 had significant negative impacts on those institutions, the chapter demonstrates that the development of science communication in Denmark is less straightforwardly focused on dialogue and deliberation than many outside commentators believe. While the engagement agenda has grown in other countries since 2000, Denmark has moved in the opposite direction—towards a more traditional deficit model of public understanding of science. A legislative change in 2003 made it mandatory for universities to conduct outreach and science communication. Simultaneously, Danish universities increasingly find themselves in competition for resources, such as funding and well-qualified staff and students. In this situation, science communication is becoming an important ingredient of organizational branding. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how individual research managers in bio- and nanotechnology have adapted to this situation and how they describe their own communication practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The Board survived, although on 15 November 2011 it was informed that it would be closed down as a result of budget cuts. See http://www.tekno.dk/subpage.php3?page=forside.php3&language=uk (retrieved 30 November 2011).
- 2.
All quotes from Danish sources have been translated by the author.
References
Agersnap, T. (1992). Konstruktiv teknologi. København: Nyt fra Samfundsvidenskaberne.
Agersnap, T., Jakobsen, G., & Kempinski, J. (1984). Konsensuskonferencer i danmark. København: DSI.
Andersen, I., & Jæger, B. (1999). Danish participatory models. Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: Towards more democratic decision-making. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 331–340.
Cronberg, T. (1995). Do marginal voices shape technology? In J. Simon & J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe (pp. 125–134). London: Science Museum.
Einsiedel, E. F., Jelsøe, E., & Breck, T. (2001). Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 83–98.
Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. New York: Plenum Trade.
Grundtvig, N. F. S. (1839). ‘Er Lyset for de Lærde Blot’ [Is the light just for the learned?]. The Danish Folk High School Song Book (17th ed.), song number 462, Odense: Foreningens Forlag.
Horst, M. (2008). In search of dialogue: Staging science communication in consensus conferences. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts (pp. 259–274). New York: Springer.
Horst, M. (under review) The discipline, the organization, or science itself? Working paper, unpublished.
Horst, M., & Irwin, A. (2010). Nations at ease with radical knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 40(1), 105–126.
Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Joss, S., & Durant, J. (1995). Public participation in science. London: Science Museum.
Kappel, K., & Lykkeskov, A. (2007). Etik i tiden: 20 år med det etiske råd. Det Etiske Råd.
Klüwer, L. (1995). Consensus conferences at the Danish Board of Technology. In S. Joss & J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe (pp. 41–49). London: Science Museum.
Knudsen, T. (2001). Da demokrati blev til folkestyre: Dansk demokratihistorie I. Akademisk Forlag A/S.
Koch, L., & Horst, M. (2007). Fra almenhed til pluralitet: Forestillinger om konsensusskabelse i det etiske råds historie. In K. Kappel & A. Lykkeskov (Eds.), Etik i tiden: 20 år med det etiske råd (pp. 143–166). København: Det Etiske Råd.
Korsgaard, O. (2004). Kampen om folket—et dannelsesperspektiv på dansk historie gennem 500 år. København: Gyldendal.
Kragh, H., Kjærgaard, P. C., Nielsen, H., & Nielsen, K. H. (2008). Science in Denmark: A thousand-year history. Århus: Aarhus University Press.
Lassen, J. (2004). Changing modes of biotechnology governance in denmark. STAGE discussion paper 3. Retrieved 13 Nov 2011 from http://www.stage-research.net/STAGE/documents/3_BiotechnologyGovernanceDK_final.pdf
Lund, A. B., & Horst, M. (1999). Den offentlige debat—mål, middel eller mantra. København: Fremad.
Mejlgaard, N. (2009). The trajectory of scientific citizenship in Denmark: Changing balances between public competence and public participation. Science and Public Policy, 36(6), 483–496.
Rasmussen, A. F. (2002). Prime minister’s New Year’s speech. Retrieved 13 Nov 2011 from http://www.stm.dk/Index/dokumenter.asp/_p_7354.html
SCST (House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology). (2000). Science and society. London: House of Lords.
Seifert, F. (2006). Local steps in an international career: A Danish-style consensus conference in Austria. Public Understanding of Science, 15(1), 73–88.
STAGE (Science, Technology and Governance in Europe). (2005). Website and final report. STAGE network. Retrieved 13 Nov 2011 from http://www.stage-research.net/STAGE/index.html
Suine, K., & Mejlgaard, N. (2001). Public understanding of science—Perceptions of and attitudes toward biotechnology in Denmark. Aarhus: Analyseinstitut for forskning.
Videnskabsministeren. (2011). Universitetsloven. Retsinformation. Retrieved 13 Nov 2011 from https://www.retsinformation.dk/forms/r0710.aspx?id=137835
Videnskabsministeriet. (2004). Forsk og fortæl. Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling.
Vikkelsø, S. (2003). Electronic patient records and medical practice reorganization of roles, responsibilities, and risks. København: Samfundslitteratur.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Horst, M. (2012). Deliberation, Dialogue or Dissemination: Changing Objectives in the Communication of Science and Technology in Denmark. In: Schiele, B., Claessens, M., Shi, S. (eds) Science Communication in the World. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4279-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4279-6_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4278-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4279-6
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)