The Physiology of Imagined Publics

From a Deficit to an Ambivalence Model

  • Gisle Solbu Norwegian University of Science and Technology


This paper draws on the concept of imagined lay persons (ILP) to investigate how scientists working in the fields of bio- and nanotechnology perceive the public and how these imaginaries facilitate or hinder engagement activities. Scientists construct imaginaries of publics that shape the ways in which they address the public, perceive the benefits of public engagement activities, and form communication strategies. Moreover, the paper argues that scientists’ accounts of the public are characterised by ambivalence regarding what the public is, the public’s knowledge and the public’s ability to take part in scientific processes. Thus, the paper proposes a more comprehensive approach to understanding ILPs than provided by previous studies, which have focused on the attribution of knowledge deficits and related fears of protest and resistance.


Download data is not yet available.


Akrich M (1995) User Representations: Practices, Methods and Sociology. In: Rip AMTJeSJ (ed) Managing Technology in Society. The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Pinter, 167–184.

Barnett J, Burningham K, Walker G & Cass N (2012) Imagined Publics and Engagement Around Renewable Energy Technologies in the UK. Public Understanding of Science 21(1): 36–50. doi: 10.1177/0963662510365663.

Bauer MW (2009) The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science – Discourse and Comparative Evidence. Science Technology and Society 14(2): 221–240. doi: 10.1177/097172180901400202.

Besley JC & Nisbet M (2013) How Scientists View the Public, the Media and the Political Process. Public Understanding of Science 22(6): 644–659. doi: 10.1177/0963662511418743.

Bijker WE (1995) Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bijker WE & Law J (1992) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Borup M, Brown N, Konrad K & Van Lente H (2006) The Sociology of Expectations in Science and Technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18(3–4): 285–298. doi: 10.1080/09537320600777002.

Bucchi M (1998) Science and the Media: Alternative Routes in Scientific Communication. London & New York: Routledge.

Charmaz, K (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory. London: Sage Publication

European Commission (2010) Biotechnology: Special Eurobarometer. Bruxelles: European Commission.

European Comission (2016) Responsible research & innovation. Available at: (accessed 5.12.2016).

Felt U, Barben D, Irwin A, Joly P-B, Rip A, Stirling A & Stöckelová T (2013). Science in Society: Caring for our Futures in Turbulent Times. Science Policy Briefing. European Science Foundation.

Felt U & Wynne B (2007) Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate: Directorate General for Research.

Gieryn, T. (1983) Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6): 781-795.

Gottweis H, Chen HD & Starkbaum J (2011) Biobanks and the Phantom Public. Human Genetics 130(3): 433–440. doi: 10.1007/s00439-011-1065-y.

Heidenreich S (2015) Sublime Technology and Object of Fear: Offshore Wind Scientists Assessing Publics. Environment and Planning A 47(5): 1047–1062.

Irwin, A (2001) Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 1–18.

Irwin, A (2014) From Deficit to Democracy (Re-Visited). Public Understanding of Science 23(1): 71–76.

Irwin A & Michael M (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Irwin A & Wynne B (1996) Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jasanoff S & Kim S-H (2009) Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva 47(2): 119–146. doi: 10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4.

Kjølberg K (2009) Representations of Nanotechnology in Norwegian Newspapers – Implications for Public Participation. Nanoethics 3:1: 61-72

Latour B (1999) Pandoras Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press

Latour B (2004) Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. Critical Inquiry 30(2): 225–248. doi: doi:10.1086/421123.

Latour B (2005) From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik. In: Latour B & Weibel P (eds) Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Cambridge & London: MIT Press.

Latour B (2008) What is the Style of Matters of Concern? Two Lectures in Empirical Philosophy. Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.

Lie M & Sørensen KH (1996) Making Technology Our Own? Domesticating Technology into Everday Life. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

Lippmann W (1925) The Phantom Public. New York: Harcourt.

Maranta A, Guggenheim M, Gisler P & Pohl C (2003). The Reality of Experts and the Imagined Lay Person. Acta Sociologica 46(2): 150–165. doi: 10.1177/0001699303046002005.

Marres N (2005) Issues Spark a Public into Being. In: Latour B & Weibel P (eds) Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Cambridge & London: MIT Press.

Marres N (2007) The Issues Deserve More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy. Social Studies of Science 37(5): 759–780.

Marris C (2015) The construction of Imaginaries of the Public as a Threat to Synthetic Biology. Science as Culture 24 (1): 83-98.

Merton RK (1976) Sociological Ambivalence and Other Essays. New York: Free Press.

Nowotny H, Scott P & Gibbons M (2003) "Mode 2" Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva 41 (3): 179-194

Nydal R, Myhr AL, Myskja B (2016) From Ethics of Restriction to Ethics of Construction: ELSA Research in Norway. Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies 3(1)

Olesen, V. (2007) Feminist qualitative research and grounded theory: complexities, criticisms, and opportunities. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications Ltd: 417-435

Owen R, Macnaghten P & Stilgoe J (2012) Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society. Science and Public Policy 39(6): 751–760. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs093.

Reichertz, J (2007) Abduction: The Logic of Discovery of Grounded Theory. In Bryant, A and Charmaz, K (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. Los Angeles, CA: Sage: 214-228.

Rip A (2006) Folk Theories of Nanotechnologists. Science as Culture 15(4): 349–365. doi: 10.1080/09505430601022676.

Physiology (2014) A dictionary of Biology, Oxford: Oxford Press

Siune K & Markus E (2009) Challenging Futures of Science in Society. MASIS Expert Group, set up by the European Commision.

Stilgoe J, Owen R & Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation. Research Policy 42(9): 1568–1580.

Tutton R (2007) Constructing Participation in Genetic Databases – Citizenship, Governance, and Ambivalence. Science Technology & Human Values 32(2): 172–195.

Van Lente H (2012) Navigating Foresight in a Sea of Expectations: Lessons from the Sociology of Expectations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 24(8): 769–782. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2012.715478.

Von Schomberg R (2011) Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields.

Von Schomberg R (2013) A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation. In: Owen MHR & Bessant J (eds) Responsible Innovation. London: John Wiley.

Walker G, Cass N, Burningham K & Barnett J (2010). Renewable Energy and Sociotechnical Change: Imagined Subjectivities of 'the Public' and their Implications. Environment and Planning A 42(4): 931–947. doi: 10.1068/a41400.

Woolgar S (1990) Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials. The Sociological Review 38(S1): 58–99. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03349.x.

Wynne B (1992) Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science. Public Understanding of Science 3(1).

Wynne B (1995) Public Understanding of Science. In: Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Petersen JC & Pinch T (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Research Papers