The Power of Place
How Local Engagement with Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Re-situated Technoscience and Re-assembled the Public
Investigating the role of geographical location in public engagement with science we examine the West Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) Partnership’s undertaking of one of the most extensive local public engagements with environmental risk science in the UK. The case study highlights the transformative impacts of this three-year long local engagement on both science and the public. Differently from other invited public engagements, organised as experiments controlled by scientists in spaces set aside from the everyday, the Partnership’s lay members led a process unfolding in the place that was potentially at risk. The Partnership had the authority to demand that scientists addressed issues of local interest. We frame the analysis with the notions ‘re-situating technoscience' and ‘re-assembling the public' to illuminate how scientific knowledge claims were modified and a new local public emerged, at the intersection of public engagement with science and public participation in environmental risk governance.
Aitken M (2009) Wind power planning controversies and the construction of 'expert' and 'lay' knowledges. Science as Culture 18(1): 47-64.
Beck U (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
Bergmans A (2010) Meaningful communication among experts and affected citizens on risk: challenge or impossibility? Journal of Risk Research 11(1-2): 175-193.
Bergmans A, Sundqvist G, Kos D and Simmons P (2015) The participatory turn in radioactive waste management: deliberation and the social-technical divide. Journal of Risk Research 18(3): 347-363.
Bickerstaff K (2012) 'Because we've got history here': nuclear waste, cooperative siting, and the relational geography of a complex issue. Environment and Planning A 44: 2611-2628.
Blowers A (2017) The Legacy of Nuclear Power. London: Routledge
Blowers A (2010) Why dump on us? Power, pragmatism and the periphery in the siting of new nuclear reactors in the UK. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 7: 157-173.
Blowers A and Sundqvist G (2010) Radioactive waste management - technocratic dominance in an age of participation. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 7: 149-155.
Bogner A (2012) The Paradox of Participation Experiments. Science, Technology & Human Values 37: 506-527.
Braun K and Schultz S (2010) "… a certain amount of engineering involved": Constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements. Public Understanding of Science 19: 403-419.
Bulkeley H (2005) Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks. Political Geography 24: 875-902.
Bulkeley H and Mol A P J (2003) Participation and Environmental Governance: Consensus, Ambivalence and Debate. Environmental Values 12: 143-154.
Burgess J, Stirling A, Clark J, Davies G, Eames M and Williamson K (2007) Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic - deliberative methodology to support contested science - policy decisions. Public Understanding of Science 16: 299-322.
Callon M (1999) The Role of Lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge. Science, Technology & Society 4: 81-94
Callon M, Lascoumes P and Barthes Y (2009) Acting in an uncertain world. An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chilvers J (2013) Reflexive Engagement? Actors, Learning, and Reflexivity in Public Dialogue on Science and Technology. Science Communication 35: 283-310.
Chilvers J (2007) Democratizing science in the UK: the case of radioactive waste management. In: Leach M, Scoones I and Wynne B (eds) Science and Citizens. Globalization and the challenge of engagement. London: Zed Books, pp. 237- 243.
Cohen B and Ottinger G (2011) Introduction: Environmental Justice and the Transformation of Science and Engineering. In: Ottinger G and Cohen B (eds) Technoscience and Environmental Justice. Expert Cultures in a Grassroots Movement. Cambridge Mass: The MIT Press, pp. 1-18.
Committee for Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) (2009) CoRWM report to government. Geological Disposal of Higher Activity Radioactive Wastes. CoRWM Document Number 2550, Available at: https://curie.ornl.gov/system/files/documents/SEA/corwm_report_on_geological_disposal_final_31_jul_2009_doc_2550.pdf (accessed xx.xx.xxxx)
Davies SR, Selin C, Gano G and Guimares Pereira A (2012) Citizen engagement and urban change: Three case studies of material deliberation. Cities 29: 351-357.
Defra (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), and the Devolved Administrations (2008) Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal. London: The Stationery Office.
Durant D and Fuji Johnson G (2009) Nuclear Waste Management in Canada. Critical Issues, Critical Perspectives. Vancouver/Toronto: UBC Press.
Durant D and Stanley A (2009) An Official Narrative: Telling the History of Canada's Nuclear Waste Policy Making. In: Durant D and Fuji Johnson G (eds) Nuclear Waste Management in Canada. Critical Issues, Critical Perspectives. Vancouver/Toronto: UBC Press, pp. 31-51.
Felt U and Fochler (2010) Machineries for Making Publics: Inscribing and De-scribing Publics in Public Engagement. Minerva 48: 219-238.
Felt U, Igelsböck J, Schikowitz A and Völker T (2016) Transdiciplinary Sustainability Research in Practice: Between Imaginaries of Collective Experimentation and Entrenched Academic Value Orders. Science, Technology & Human Values 41: 732-761.
French S and Bayley C (2011) Public participation: comparing approaches. Journal of Risk Research 14: 241-257.
Fuji Johnson G (2009) The Darker side of Deliberative Democracy: The Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Organization's National Consultation Process. In: Durant D and Fuji Johnson G (eds) Nuclear Waste Management in Canada. Critical Issues, Critical Perspectives. Vancouver/Toronto: UBC Press, pp. 90-105.
Hare M (2011) Forms of Participatory Modelling and its Potential for Widespread Adoption in the Water Sector. Environmental Policy and Governance 21: 386-402.
Haraway D (1988) Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14: 575-599.
Huistra H and Mellink B (2016) Phrasing history: Selecting sources in digital repositories. Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History 49: 220-229.
Landström C, Whatmore SJ, Lane SN, Odoni NA, Ward N and Bradley S (2011) Co-producing flood risk knowledge: redistributing expertise in 'participatory modelling'. Environment and Planning A, 43: 1617-1633.
Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Laurent B (2016) Political experiments that matter: Ordering democracy from experimental sites. Social Studies of Science 46: 773-794.
Mackerron G and Berkhout F (2009) Learning to listen: institutional change and legitimation in UK radioactive waste policy. Journal of Risk Research 12: 989-1008.
Marres N (2012) Material Participation. Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Meadowcroft J (2002) Politics and scale: some implications for environmental governance. Landscape and Urban Planning 61: 169-179.
Newig J, Kochskämper E, Challies E and Jager NW (2016) Exploring governance learning: How policymakers draw on evidence, experience and intuition in designing participatory flood risk planning. Environmental Science and Policy 55: 353-360.
NWMO (Nuclear Waste Management Organization) (2005) Choosing a Way Forward: The Future Management of Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel. Final Study. Toronto: NWMO.
Papazu I (2016) Authoring participation. Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies 4: 17-31.
Pierce J, Martin DG and Murphy JT (2011) Relational place-making: the networked politics of place. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36: 54-70.
Ricoeur P (1973) The Model of the Text: Meaningful Action Considered as a Text. New Literary History 5: 91-117.
Selin C, Rawlings K C, de Ridder-Vignone K et al. (2016) Experiments in engagement: Designing public engagement with science and technology for capacity building. Public Understanding of Science 26: 634-649.
Shelley FM, Solomon BD, Pasqualetti MJ and Murauskas GT (1988) Local conflict and the siting of nuclear waste disposal repositories: and international appraisal. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 6: 323-333.
Sundqvist G and Elam M (2010) Public Involvement Designed to Circumvent Public Concern? The 'Participatory Turn' in European Nuclear Activities. Risks, Hazards and Crisis in Public Policy 1: 203-229.
Swyngedouw E (2014) Where is the political? Insurgent mobilisations and the incipient 'return of the political'. Space and Polity 18: 122-136.
Tamboukou M (2014) Archival research: unravelling space/time/matter entanglements and fragments. Qualitative Research 14: 617-633.
Tavares AO and dos Santos PP (2014) Re-scaling risk governance using local appraisal and community involvement. Journal of Risk Research 17: 923-949.
Tsouvalis J and Waterton C (2012) Building 'participation' upon critique: The Loweswater Care Project, Cumbria, UK. Environmental Modelling and Software 36: 111-121.
Van Ast JA and Gerrits L (2017) Public participation, experts and expert knowledge in water management in the Netherlands. Water Policy 19: 115-127.
Welch C (2000) The archaeology of business networks: the use of archival records in case study research. Journal of Strategic Marketing 8: 197-208.
Wesselink A, Paavola J, Fritsch O and Renn O (2011) Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: practitioners' perspectives. Environment and Planning A 43: 2688-2704.
Whatmore SJ and Landström C (2011) Flood-Apprentices: An Exercise in Making Things Public. Economy & Society 40: 582-610.
Whitman GP, Pain R and Milledge DG (2015) Going with the flow? Using participatory action research in physical geography. Progress in Physical Geography 39: 622: 639.
Wynne B (1996) May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: Lash S, Szerszynski B and Wynne B (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. London: SAGE, pp. 44–83.
Wynne B (2014) Further disorientation in the hall of mirrors. Public understanding of Science 23: 60-70.
Terms & Conditions
This Science & Technology Studies website ("Site") is owned and operated by The Finnish Society for Science and Technology Studies (“Society”). The Finnish Society for Science and Technology Studies and its publication Science & Technology Studies are non-profit organizations.
The Society reserves the right to change, modify, add or remove portions of these Terms and Conditions at its discretion at any time and without prior notice. Please check this page periodically for any modifications. Your continued use of this Site following the posting of any changes will mean that you have accepted the changes.
Copyrights and Limitations on Use
Content in this Site, including site layout, design, images, text and other information (collectively, the "Content") is the property of The Finnish Society for Science and Technology Studies/Science & Technology Studies and is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws, unless otherwise noted. This does not include the articles that remain the copyright of the authors.
Content on this website is protected by Creative Commons license CC BY 4.0. This permits users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the published articles. Using and sharing the content is permitted as long as original materials are appropriately credited.
The Site may contain robot exclusion headers, and by using the Site you agree that you will not use any robots, spiders, crawlers or other automated downloading programs or devices to access, search, index, monitor or copy any Content. The harvesting of postal or email addresses from the Site for purposes of sending unsolicited or unauthorized commercial material, is prohibited. Any questions about whether a particular use is authorized and any requests for permission to publish, reproduce, distribute, display or make derivative works from any Content should be directed to the Science & Technology Studies Assistant Editor.
You may not use the services on the Site to publish or distribute any information (including software or other content) that is illegal; violates or infringes upon the rights of any other person; is abusive, hateful, profane, pornographic, threatening or vulgar; contains errors, viruses or other harmful components; or is otherwise actionable by law. Science & Technology Studies may at any time exercise editorial control over the content of any information or material that is submitted or distributed through its facilities and/or services.
You may not, without the approval of Science & Technology Studies, use the Site to publish or distribute any advertising, promotional material, or solicitation to other users of the Site to use any goods or services. For example (but without limitation), you may not use the Site to conduct any business, to solicit the performance of any activity that is prohibited by law, or to solicit other users to become subscribers of other information services. Similarly, you may not use the Site to download and redistribute public information or shareware for personal gain or use the facilities and/or services to distribute multiple copies of public domain information or shareware.
All trademarks appearing on this Site are the property of their respective owners.
Links to Other Sites
The Site may contain hyperlinks to other sites or resources that are provided solely for your convenience. Science & Technology Studies is not responsible for the availability of external sites or resources linked to the Site, and does not endorse and is not responsible or liable for any content, advertising, products or other materials on or available from such sites or resources. Transactions that occur between you and any third party are strictly between you and the third party and are not the responsibility of Science & Technology Studies. Due to the fact that Science & Technology Studies is not responsible for the availability or accuracy of these outside resources or their contents, you should review the terms and conditions and privacy policies of these linked sites, as their policies may differ from ours.
Last revised: 3 Aug 2020