Understanding Technoscientific Citizenship in a Low-Carbon Scotland
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNDERSTANDING TECHNOSCIENTIFIC CITIZENSHIP IN A LOW-CARBON SCOTLAND Beverley Jane Gibbs BEng(Hons) MBA MA CEng MIMMM Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy JULY 2015 DEDICATION .....to the kindest man I ever knew - my Dad, Martin Young (1935 – 2012) ....and to my postgrad mentor and - for this studentship – referee, Stephen Regan (1962-2010) Athair agus oide, beirt Éireannach go smior, a bhí ina réalt eolais domsa ABSTRACT Public engagement with science and technology is a vibrant topic of interest in the United Kingdom, offering promises of democratic and informed governance and a supportive and trusting public. In this context, the idea of ‘scientific citizenship’ is gaining ground, though it remains nebulous in both theory and practice with contested, overlapping and unarticulated representations of its origins, meaning and purpose. The aim of this thesis is to unpack the notion of scientific citizenship, in particular, questions relating to: who counts as a scientific citizen, what rights do they have as citizens and how are scientific citizens meant to engage with science. This aim is achieved exploring the status of scientific citizenship in the context of public engagement with science activities and low-carbon transition strategies in Scotland. With some of the most ambitious greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets in the world, the generation and use of energy in Scotland is a pervasive and technology-intensive area of public policy where one can anticipate varying rationales for involving the public. This thesis draws on a wide empirical field that constitutes public engagement with low- carbon technologies in Scotland, and considers practice and policy in the light of relevant literatures. I draw on three particular fields of scholarship to develop a novel conceptual framework that shaped the empirical investigation. Scholarship around science and publics from science and technology studies (STS), public responses to renewable energy developments from social science research and the social and political theories on the nature of citizenship were synthesised to a typology outlining five archetypes of the scientific citizen, each invoking differing understandings of publics, rights and modes of participation. The empirical phase drew on a qualitative enquiry of interviews, observation and document analysis across policy, commercial and civil sectors of society. In response to the question of what scientific citizenship means, I argue that only when all three dimensions of membership, rights and participation are fulfilled or pursued simultaneously can the idea be invoked, and three such nexus are outlined. The idea of technoscience and cultural citizenship offers a way of reconceptualising popular science communication activity that is at risk of being dismissed as manifestations of an outdated ‘deficit model’ of publics and science. Technoscience and material citizenship offers a route into questions of governance, making the case that the materiality of a project makes a profound difference at the point of implementation, when consensus may not be possible and the rights of multiple publics to be recognised and to participate will need to be carefully negotiated. And finally, as a counterpoint, the idea of technoscience and anticipatory citizenship provides a space around emerging technologies for ongoing debates about the effectiveness of public dialogue and the relative roles of emergent and created publics. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (award number ES/H028935/1) and The Scottish Government without whose financial support it could not have been performed. I thank my supervisors Dr Sujatha Raman and Dr Alison Mohr for their commitment, interest, patience, enthusiasm, expertise and encouragement in this research, my development generally and in facilitating my transition into sociologically-grounded work. They have gone above and beyond the call of duty more times than I can recall and I cannot imagine two better supervisors. I am grateful to the many people who participated in this research, so often with a genuine interest in the topic and a willingness to offer further pointers to interesting activity and other opportunities for study. In particular, Ben Dipper formerly of The Scottish Government was instrumental in facilitating many of the elite interviews and endeavoured to include me in as many relevant activities as possible. Kate Roach, thankyou for your thorough and extensive proofreading. Rob Smith, thanks for the formatting tutorial. Laurie Winkless, thankyou for the wonderful Gaelic dedication which completely captured what was in my heart. Thankyou to my colleagues at the University of Nottingham, past and present. Stimulating conversation, mutual encouragement and many laughs – I am fortunate that so many colleagues have become friends. The work has been challenged and opened up by the Leverhulme Trusts’s Making Science Public programme - such generous colleagues in discussing overlapping interests. Alison Haigh for keeping me compliant with systems, answering difficult questions (repeatedly) with patience and authority and offering endless guidance. Amal Treacher Kabesh has supported me with genuine concern, patience and empathy. Brigitte Nerlich, you are an inspiration as an academic and a human being. Greg Hollin – you are a genius, a clown and a star - I couldn’t have wished for a greater desk buddy. Warren, I hope we’re firm friends always. As a mature student from a ‘non-traditional’ background I come to a social science PhD with some surprise, yet the circumstances have roots stretching back over many years. I feel this is an opportune moment to sincerely thank Mick and Lucy Haime, Maria and Amanda for opening up their home to me so many years ago, for giving me the safety and stability needed for a love of scholarship to take root, become established and flourish. Without you, this document simply would not be here and my life would have been very different. (Almost) finally, I turn to the people who were closest to me on this journey. The patience needed to put up with a PhD student can be great, but Stuart and Emily were never anything but supportive, encouraging and committed. Stuart - that you were not here at this thesis’ submission doesn’t diminish your imprint on every page. Emily - your enthusiasm for this project has been inspiring, and I thank you for working around the demands the work has brought with it, for having to be more self-sufficient than I would have liked and for many, many cups of coffee, hot meals and regular hugs – thankyou, always. Now let’s go on holiday. A combination of factors transpired to make the last year the most difficult we have faced; that they were the months that the thesis had to be written has felt overwhelming so much more often than it has not. To have come through them intact and with this document in hand is due entirely to the robust network of support that coalesced so rapidly with practical and emotional support: Paula Anderson, Sarah Binns, Greg Hollin, Alison Mohr, Warren Pearce, Sujatha Raman, Kate Roach and David Waldock – thankyou. Contents CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1 1.1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1 1.2. RATIONALE FOR RESEARCH ........................................................................... 11 1.3. CONCEPTUAL GROUNDING ............................................................................. 12 1.4. RESEARCH AIM AND QUESTIONS .................................................................... 14 1.5. SUMMARY OF RESEARCH METHODS .............................................................. 15 1.6. STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS ............................................................................ 16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW: A JOURNEY FROM PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT WITH SCIENCE TO SCIENTIFIC CITIZENSHIP ............. 19 2.1.PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................................ 19 2.2. RENEWABLE ENERGY AND SOCIETY ................................................................. 40 2.3. FROM ENGAGEMENT TO CITIZENSHIP .............................................................. 59 2.4. EMERGENT TYPOLOGY ...................................................................................... 68 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN: A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF PRACTICE, DECISION-MAKERS AND PRACTITIONERS .......................... 71 3.1. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ......................................................................... 71 3.2. HOW THE EMPIRICAL DATA CAME ABOUT ...................................................... 75 3.3. REFLECTIONS ON CROSSING DISCIPLINES IN THE RESEARCH PROCESS ......... 97 CHAPTER 4 LOCATING SCIENTIFIC CITIZENSHIP: ‘MEMBERSHIP’ AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICS ..................................................... 100 4.1. CONCEPTS OF MEMBERSHIP IN SCIENTIFIC CITIZENSHIP ................................ 100 4.2. ENTHUSED PUBLICS .......................................................................................... 102 4.3. PUBLIC AS CONSUMERS .................................................................................... 110 4.4. COUNTERPUBLICS ............................................................................................ 125 4.5. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................