Industrial constructions of publics and public knowledge: a qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry

This is a post print version of the article. The official published version can be obtained from the link below - © 2007 by SAGE PublicationsWhile the rhetoric of public engagement is increasingly commonplace within industry, there has been little research that examines how lay knowledge is conceptualized and whether it is really used within companies. Using the chemicals sector as an example, this paper explores how companies conceive of publics and "public knowledge," and how this relates to modes of engagement/communication with them. Drawing on qualitative empirical research in four companies, we demonstrate that the public for industry are primarily conceived as "consumers" and "neighbours," having concerns that should be allayed rather than as groups with knowledge meriting engagement. We conclude by highlighting the dissonance between current advocacy of engagement and the discourses and practices prevalent within industry, and highlight the need for more realistic strategies for industry/public engagement.Funding was received from the ESRC Science in Society Programme

Climate geoengineering: issues of path-dependence and socio-technical lock-in

As academic and policy interest in climate geoengineering grows, the potential irreversibility of technological developments in this domain has been raised as a pressing concern. The literature on socio-technical lock-in and path dependence is illuminating in helping to situate current concerns about climate geoengineering and irreversibility in the context of academic understandings of historical socio-technical development and persistence. This literature provides a wealth of material illustrating the pervasiveness of positive feedbacks of various types (from the discursive to the material) leading to complex socio-technical entanglements which may resist change and become inflexible even in the light of evidence of negative impacts. With regard to climate geoengineering, there are concerns that geoengineering technologies might contribute so-called ‘carbon lock-in’, or become irreversibly ‘locked-in’ themselves. In particular, the scale of infrastructures that geoengineering interventions would require, and the issue of the so-called ‘termination effect’ have been discussed in these terms. Despite the emergent and somewhat ill-defined nature of the field, some authors also suggest that the extant framings of geoengineering in academic and policy literatures may already demonstrate features recognizable as forms of cognitive lock-in, likely to have profound implications for future developments in this area. While the concepts of path-dependence and lock-in are the subject of ongoing academic critique, by drawing analytical attention to these pervasive processes of positive feedback and entanglement, this literature is highly relevant to current debates around geoengineering

Exploring the role of materials in policy change: innovation in low energy housing in the UK

There remains uncertainty in models of the policy process about how and when radical change takes place. Most policy authors focus on explaining incremental change, and yet in practice a pattern of change described as punctuated equilibrium has been observed, with periods of stability interspersed with periods of rapid, abrupt change. It is argued here that the influence of materials and technologies—the substance of policy—must be incorporated into models of the policy process in order to help further our understanding of radical change. Concepts from science and technology studies concerning the inseparability of social and technical spheres are used to explore how people and materials interact to create opportunities for radical change. These ideas are particularly relevant to policy sectors comprising durable, capital-intensive infrastructure, such as housing. Drawing on examples from the UK housing sector, ideas about policy networks and large technical systems are synthesised to develop a more holistic, interdisciplinary account of policy change

Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the Social Sciences?

In this article we argue that nanotechnology represents an extraordinary opportunity to build in a robust role for the social sciences in a technology that remains at an early, and hence undetermined, stage of development. We examine policy dynamics in both the United States and United Kingdom aimed at both opening up, and closing down, the role of the social sciences in nanotechnologies. We then set out a prospective agenda for the social sciences and its potential in the future shaping of nanotechnology research and innovation processes. The emergent, undetermined nature of nanotechnologies calls for an open, experimental, and interdisciplinary model of social science research

Practicing stewardship: EU biofuels policy and certification in the UK and Guatemala

Biofuels have transitioned from a technology expected to deliver numerous benefits to a highly contested socio-technical solution. Initial hopes about their potential to mitigate climate change and to deliver energy security benefits and rural development, particularly in the Global South, have unravelled in the face of numerous controversies. In recognition of the negative externalities associated with biofuels, the European Union developed sustainability criteria which are enforced by certification schemes. This paper draws on the literature on stewardship to analyse the outcomes of these schemes in two countries: the UK and Guatemala. It explores two key issues: first, how has European Union biofuels policy shaped biofuel industries in the UK and Guatemala? And second, what are the implications for sustainable land stewardship? By drawing attention to the outcomes of European demand for biofuels, we raise questions about the ability of European policy to drive sustainable land practices in these two cases. The paper concludes that, rather than promoting stewardship, the current governance framework effectively rubberstamps existing agricultural systems and serves to further embed existing inequalities

A least-cost approach to personal exposure reduction.

Concerns over the potential negative health effects from exposure to air pollution have led to interest in assessing personal exposure and finding ways to reduce it. As journey-time exposure accounts for a disproportionately high amount of an individual’s total exposure, this article assesses the potential to apply least-cost techniques within a GIS in order to identify paths of lower journey-time exposure. The methodology adopted uses pollution surfaces for PM10 and CO generated by the dispersion model ADMS, with an analysis mask derived from OS MasterMap to create a least-cost surface. Actual routes taken by a cohort of 11–13 year old children on their journeys to school are used to compare observed journey time exposure with the exposure along alternative routes generated using the least-cost path function. While the least-cost approach proved to be successful in defining low exposure routes the ability to scale up this approach is constrained by the amount of editing required to successfully create an analysis mask from OS MasterMap data. Such alternative routes have the potential to assist in promoting safer environmental choices, however, their likelihood of adoption is dependant on a number of social and environmental influences which affect an individual’s route choice

Strategic appraisal of environmental risks: a contrast between the United Kingdom's Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change and its Committee on Radioactive Waste Management

In this article, we compare two high-profile strategic policy reviews undertaken for the U.K. government on environmental risks: radioactive waste management and climate change. These reviews took very different forms, both in terms of analytic approach and deliberation strategy. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change was largely an exercise in expert modeling, building, within a cost-benefit framework, an argument for immediate reductions in carbon emissions. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, on the other hand, followed a much more explicitly deliberative and participative process, using multicriteria decision analysis to bring together scientific evidence and stakeholder and public values. In this article, we ask why the two reviews were different, and whether the differences are justified. We conclude that the differences were mainly due to political context, rather than the underpinning science, and as a consequence that, while in our view “fit for purpose,” they would both have been stronger had they been less different. Stern's grappling with ethical issues could have been strengthened by a greater degree of public and stakeholder engagement, and the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management's handling of issues of uncertainty could have been strengthened by the explicitly probabilistic framework of Stern