Public engagement and argumentation in science

Silvia Ivani; Catarina Dutilh Novaes

doi:10.1007/s13194-022-00480-y

Public engagement and argumentation in science

Silvia Ivani, Catarina Dutilh Novaes^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)

7 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Public engagement is one of the fundamental pillars of the European programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020. The programme encourages engagement that not only fosters science education and dissemination, but also promotes two-way dialogues between scientists and the public at various stages of research. Establishing such dialogues between different groups of societal actors is seen as crucial in order to attain epistemic as well as social desiderata at the intersection between science and society. However, whether these dialogues can actually help attaining these desiderata is far from obvious. This paper discusses some of the costs, risks, and benefits of dialogical public engagement practices, and proposes a strategy to analyse these argumentative practices based on a three-tiered model of epistemic exchange. As a case study, we discuss the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy, arguably a result of suboptimal public engagement, and show how the proposed model can shed new light on the problem.

Original language	English
Article number	54
Number of pages	29
Journal	European Journal for Philosophy of Science
Volume	12
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-022-00480-y
Publication status	Published - 9 Aug 2022

Keywords

Public engagement
Responsible research and innovation
Vaccine hesitancy
Argumentation
Trust in science

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1007/s13194-022-00480-yLicence: CC BY

Ivani_2022_EJPS_Publicengagement_CC
Copyright © The Author (s) 2022. Open Access. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Final published version, 1.19 MBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{be3bc88451a24edd9fb2d88877c7ee13,

title = "Public engagement and argumentation in science",

abstract = "Public engagement is one of the fundamental pillars of the European programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020. The programme encourages engagement that not only fosters science education and dissemination, but also promotes two-way dialogues between scientists and the public at various stages of research. Establishing such dialogues between different groups of societal actors is seen as crucial in order to attain epistemic as well as social desiderata at the intersection between science and society. However, whether these dialogues can actually help attaining these desiderata is far from obvious. This paper discusses some of the costs, risks, and benefits of dialogical public engagement practices, and proposes a strategy to analyse these argumentative practices based on a three-tiered model of epistemic exchange. As a case study, we discuss the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy, arguably a result of suboptimal public engagement, and show how the proposed model can shed new light on the problem.",

keywords = "Public engagement, Responsible research and innovation, Vaccine hesitancy, Argumentation, Trust in science",

author = "Silvia Ivani and {Dutilh Novaes}, Catarina",

note = "This research is generously supported by the European Research Council with grant ERC-2017-CoG 771074 for the project {\textquoteleft}The Social Epistemology of Argumentation{\textquoteright}.",

year = "2022",

month = aug,

day = "9",

doi = "10.1007/s13194-022-00480-y",

language = "English",

volume = "12",

journal = "European Journal for Philosophy of Science",

issn = "1879-4912",

publisher = "Springer",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Public engagement and argumentation in science

AU - Ivani, Silvia

AU - Dutilh Novaes, Catarina

N1 - This research is generously supported by the European Research Council with grant ERC-2017-CoG 771074 for the project ‘The Social Epistemology of Argumentation’.

PY - 2022/8/9

Y1 - 2022/8/9

N2 - Public engagement is one of the fundamental pillars of the European programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020. The programme encourages engagement that not only fosters science education and dissemination, but also promotes two-way dialogues between scientists and the public at various stages of research. Establishing such dialogues between different groups of societal actors is seen as crucial in order to attain epistemic as well as social desiderata at the intersection between science and society. However, whether these dialogues can actually help attaining these desiderata is far from obvious. This paper discusses some of the costs, risks, and benefits of dialogical public engagement practices, and proposes a strategy to analyse these argumentative practices based on a three-tiered model of epistemic exchange. As a case study, we discuss the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy, arguably a result of suboptimal public engagement, and show how the proposed model can shed new light on the problem.

AB - Public engagement is one of the fundamental pillars of the European programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020. The programme encourages engagement that not only fosters science education and dissemination, but also promotes two-way dialogues between scientists and the public at various stages of research. Establishing such dialogues between different groups of societal actors is seen as crucial in order to attain epistemic as well as social desiderata at the intersection between science and society. However, whether these dialogues can actually help attaining these desiderata is far from obvious. This paper discusses some of the costs, risks, and benefits of dialogical public engagement practices, and proposes a strategy to analyse these argumentative practices based on a three-tiered model of epistemic exchange. As a case study, we discuss the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy, arguably a result of suboptimal public engagement, and show how the proposed model can shed new light on the problem.

KW - Public engagement

KW - Responsible research and innovation

KW - Vaccine hesitancy

KW - Argumentation

KW - Trust in science

U2 - 10.1007/s13194-022-00480-y

DO - 10.1007/s13194-022-00480-y

M3 - Article

SN - 1879-4912

VL - 12

JO - European Journal for Philosophy of Science

JF - European Journal for Philosophy of Science

IS - 3

M1 - 54

ER -

Public engagement and argumentation in science

Abstract

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this