PERO Working Paper - Theorising online public engagement with research impacts
PERO Working Paper
Theorising online public engagement with research impacts
Dr Eric Jensen (University of Warwick)
(e.jensen@warwick.ac.uk)
with contribution from Professor David Ritchie (Portland State University)
Executive Summary:
• The online impacts of public engagement with research are primarily visible through
informal discussions that occur on a range of web platforms.
• These discussions are important due to the crucial role of informal conversation as a key
medium through which public engagement impacts develop, as well as a potential site for
‘pooling’ of public sentiment.
• Relevant theoretical perspectives for articulating these impacts (and highlighting relevant
impact evaluation opportunities) include: the online public sphere, social change and
diffusion of innovation theories.
Introduction
There are a range of theoretical perspectives that can be brought to bear to identify and articulate
impacts of online public engagement with research. Following the theoretical perspectives
discussed in this discussion paper, online public engagement can be seen variously as:
Intervention
in online
public
sphere
Catalyst
/contribution
to social
change
processes
Diffusion of
Innovation
Directions for Articulating Impacts of Online Public Engagement
Some of the online impacts that have been identified from public engagement with research are
essentially impacts on conversations. Why should we value impact on conversations that take place
online? What difference can such conversations make? This discussion paper addresses these
questions by applying in turn three theoretical lenses. The first lens draws upon the concept of the
‘public sphere’, while the second points to the role of such discourse in on-going processes of social
change. The third perspective takes the theoretical view of ‘diffusion of innovation. First however,
this paper addresses the importance of conversation per se in the process of public engagement
impact development.
The Role of Conversation in Public Engagement Impacts
Public engagement impacts are frequently mediated through interpersonal and family
communication (e.g. Jensen & Buckley 2012). Conversations within naturally occurring social
groups can determine whether new research ideas will resonate and gain traction, or will be
dismissed and ignored.
PERO Working Paper - Theorising online public engagement with research impacts
Within the context of impact analysis, a primary goal is to develop a detailed understanding
of the ways in which publics are interpreting the research ideas that are being communicated by
researchers or intermediaries. Because impact is often mediated through conversation, we can use
online discussions to validly assess the degree to which opportunities to engage with new research
ideas are taken up in conversation and integrated into on-going thinking and discussion processes
by individuals and online groups.
The kinds of research questions that are generated in this domain include: How do online
discussants integrate the new research ideas into their conversations with other members of an
online community or platforms? How do online discussants construct their understanding of the
new research idea through observable online communications? To what extent do new research
ideas enter into and become part of the common ground for future conversations with other
members of the online discussion group within which the discussion takes place? How do these
conversational processes moderate the response to new research ideas? Furthermore, how does new
research information and the online discussion surrounding it provide resources for discourse about
other topics, and how does this secondary discourse affect the integration of the research ideas into
online discussants’ understanding of topics relevant to the research?
Public Engagement with Research as an Intervention in the Online Public Sphere
The web is an influential and growing space for mass information flows and informal discourse.
Some have identified this increasingly significant space as the epicentre of an emerging
transnational public sphere; that is, “an open space where conflicting discourses about transnational
issues are being developed and debated” (Cammaerts and Van Audenhove 2005: 184). Indeed
Dahlgren (2005: 151) suggests that the web may represent “the real ‘vanguard’ of the public sphere,
the domain where the most intense developments are taking place- what we might call the cyber
transformation of the public sphere”. This section of the discussion paper considers the potential of
public engagement with research online as a contribution to a transnational public sphere and a new
era of global democracy, as well as various factors affecting the realisation of this utopian potential.
Introducing Public Sphere Theory
One way of conceptualizing an important dimension of such deliberative processes is through what
social theorist Jürgen Habermas (1989) describes as the “public sphere” (cf. Eley, 1992). Drawing
an ideal type from 18th century bourgeois café culture in Paris and London, Habermas defines the
public sphere as a nexus where citizens without a direct stake in the issue could come together to
discuss the issues of the day. The public sphere consists of a space between the political system, on
the one hand, and private life, on the other.
Highlighting the early modern public sphere in 18th and 19th century London and Paris cafe
culture as an ideal, Habermas constructs a model emphasising the emancipatory potential of the
public sphere, where reason and open deliberation result in the triumph of the better argument (cf.
Baert, 2001). For Habermas, this realm for rational debate is based upon a “public of private people
making use of their reason” (Habermas, 1989, p. 51). In this model, the “streams of
communication” entering the public sphere are “filtered and synthesized in such a way that they
coalesce into bundles of topically specified public opinions” (Habermas, 1996, p. 360).
Challenging Habermas’s centralising and reason-based model, feminist public sphere
theorists such as Ryan (1992, p. 285) have advocated a “plural and decentered concept of the
public” based on the principle that “notions of interest and identity need not be antithetical to public
good”. Indeed, Ryan emphasises the inadequacy of a public realm dominated by bourgeois values,
pointing out that those most disenfranchised and in need of a voice in the public sphere tend to
express their views in a manner that is apprehended negatively within a public sphere dominated by
formal logic and carefully reasoned discourse. Indeed the protests of the disenfranchised are often
PERO Working Paper - Theorising online public engagement with research impacts
perceived as “loud, coarse, and, yes, abrasive” (Ryan, 1992, p. 286). Such ‘loud, course and
abrasive’ discourse is frequently seen in online debates, including those focused on public
engagement with research. This perspective highlights that while such discourse may be unpalatable
from the standpoint of a rational public sphere, it may nevertheless be important if it is delivered
from personal experience and feelings of being affected by the issue at hand. Young (2000, p. 178)
identifies the difficulty of engagement for the disenfranchised:
The public sphere will properly be a site of struggle- often continuous struggle
[because]…it often takes considerable organizing, dramatic action, and rhetorical
shrewdness for people whose concerns are excluded from that agenda to break through
and gain access to public media that will…disseminate their issues so that state
institutions eventually deal with them.
Bauman (1999) understands the public sphere in terms of the agora of Ancient Greece,
which in its ideal form would allow for the coordination of citizens’ public and private concerns. In
sum, the agora model of the public sphere comprises a “territory of constant tension”, “tug-of-war”,
and “dialogue, co-operation or compromise” (Bauman, 1999, p. 87), where the “communal search
for the common good” can take place under pluralistic conditions (Bauman, 1999, p. 167). Indeed,
this ‘agora model’ of the public sphere fits much better the reality of online public discourse about
issues (including those relevant to research) than the site of reasoned discourse that Habermas puts
forward.
The Online Public Sphere
With the rise of new media technologies (e.g. the web and social networking), e-optimists have
posited the emergence of a transnational public sphere supported by the democratising, interactive
potential of such electronic communications. Indeed, some analysts contend that the web now
comprises “a modern translation of the concept of the public sphere conceived by Habermas
(1962/1991). In other words, new media are seen to permit ‘the sphere of private people [to] come
together as a public to engage them[selves] in a debate’…(1991: 27)” (Bentivegna 2001: 52). Thus,
it has been argued that “the diffusion of…new media, especially the Internet, can transform the now
devitalized relationship between political bodies and the citizenry they represent and govern”
(Bentivegna 2001: 50). It has been argued further that, “the age of the public sphere as face-to-face
talk is clearly over: the question of democracy must henceforth take into account new forms of
electronically mediated discourse” (Bentivegna 2001: 53).
As a medium, the web differs significantly from traditional mass media such as newspapers,
radio and television. Traditional media present messages in a largely one-way system of production
à content à reception, with highly limited and imperfect feedback mechanisms in place such as
‘letters to the editor’ or a journalist’s ‘sense’ about what interests audience members. At present, the
internet offers a seemingly endless menu of possible communicative combinations which can be
exercised by any user, including ‘one-to many’, ‘one to one’, or ‘many to one’ communication. In
addition, Bentivegna (2001: 53) contends that “equality among members, the reference to personal
experience and the relationship with the media are…three distinctive elements of the technological
version of the public sphere offered by the internet”. Moreover, the potential of the internet includes
such features as “interactivity”, “co-presence of vertical and horizontal communication”,
“disintermediation in the communication process” (i.e. the redundancy of the role of journalist,
storyteller, or other providers of media filters or framing devices), minimal costs, “speed of
communication” and the “absence of boundaries” (Bentivegna 2001: 54).
E-optimists view the web as creating a new medium for the provision of information to
users around the globe, comprising “an additional space for communication…[and] providing
opportunities for both information and participation” (Bentivegna 2001: 51, 54). Moreover it is
PERO Working Paper - Theorising online public engagement with research impacts
believed that the technology is capable of revolutionising democracy and opening up new, utopian
possibilities for public deliberation free of the economic and institutional constraints of traditional
media. It has been argued that “the Net is engendering an egalitarian, emancipated and
interconnected world- ‘cyberspace’- that is reconfiguring the online world in which we live…”
(Curran 2003: 227). The web is seen “to play an increasingly important role in strengthening the
public sphere through the mediation of (political) debate ” (Cammaerts and Van Audenhove 2005:
183). The internet is regarded as “an opportunity structure- opening up potentialities and
opportunities- in the realm of informal political processes and social movement organisation”
(Cammaerts and Van Audenhove 2005: 183). To be sure, “Rheingold sees in the opportunities
offered by the Internet ‘a road to revitalize an open and thorough debate among citizens who with to
nourish the roots of a democratic society’ (1993: 279)” (Bentivegna 2001: 53).
According to Bentivegna (2001: 50) “an arena” is made available “by the Internet, where
every one has a voice, together with the possibility of activating direct relations between politicians
and citizens [and] manifest[ing]…a modern version of the public sphere as formulated by
Habermas”. The internet “could be seen as inclusive in that it facilitates the organization of civil
society actors, enables new- less formalized- forms of civic engagement beyond membership, and
potentially extends the public sphere beyond the national” (Cammaerts and Van Audenhove 2005:
183). Indeed, even relatively pessimistic commentators acknowledge the potential of the web to
host a transnational public sphere, although they argue that this potential has gone unrealised. For
example, Sunstein (2001) imagines a possible future in which “the extraordinary opportunities
provided by the internet…” are employed by individual users to “seek out diverse opinions”, “learn
about an assortment of topics”, and use it as “an instrument of citizenship”. Clearly, online public
engagement with research could contribute to this kind of future, by bringing to light new
perspectives on the important issues of the day to support the exercise of active citizenship.
While the internet carries the technological potential to facilitate the emergence of a
transnational public sphere, this potential is as yet largely unrealised. Instead, there has emerged a
highly fragmented and diffused space with uneven levels of dialogue and debate. Indeed, the
“electronic public sphere” created by the internet is only “‘apparently’ open to all citizens interested
in discussing questions of public interest”, however structural inequalities and the influence of
capitalist interests online render what “McChesney (1996) has termed…a ‘partial public sphere’”
(Bentivegna 2001: 54). Rather than a central forum where the various groups in society come
together to debate, the internet has spawned a series of enclaves in cyberspace in which interestbased discourse is located. Indeed, the internet simply cannot create a transnational public sphere by
mere technological fiat. Rather the social, political and economic conditions in the larger society
must first be in such a position as to allow for the emergence of an authentic and democratic global
public sphere on the internet (see Bennett 2003).
Nevertheless this still leaves an opening for online public engagement with research. While
public engagement may not be able to target a central hub on the web, it can bring to light issues of
interests to particular enclaves of web discussion. Indeed, the fact that research tends to be focused
around specific topics with specific interest groups makes it particularly well-suited to the online
setting. The key for researchers seeking to engage stakeholder groups in their research is identifying
them and their favoured online venues. Once there, researchers may well find publics prepared to
engage actively with their research.
For broader public engagement with research online that seeks to reach a wide range of
publics, the model may be very similar to what is required for offline media. Indeed, given that
broadcast and print media place content on the web, engagement with these traditional media may
be the most effective means of raising the profile of research ideas online.
PERO Working Paper - Theorising online public engagement with research impacts
Limitations of the online public sphere
Despite the hype about near universal access to the internet being just over the horizon,
“construction of…a transnational public sphere is paved with constraints” (Cammaerts and Van
Audenhove 2005: 179). Many people are excluded from effective participation in the exclusionary
internet public sphere. Inequalities inhere in the internet sphere in terms of the geographical
allocation of internet resources, the distorted demographics of access to the internet and economic
discrimination amongst internet users. This was particularly true during the early development of
the internet. For example, the US produced 2/3 of the top 1000 most visited sites, accounting for
83% of total ‘hits’ by internet users in 2000 (Castells 2001: 219). Moreover, Western Europe
comprise 66% of internet users in 2000, compared to just 5% for Africa and Latin America
combined (Castells 2001: 260). “While the number of users is sky-rocketing, strong imbalance
persist between strong and weak countries” (Bentivegna 2001: 58). Moreover there is the problem
of “what Wilhelm calls ‘antecedent resources’ or ‘the skills and capacities that a person brings to
the table to achieve a certain (political) functioning’ (2000: 32). The differences between ‘haves’
and ‘have nots’ remain and continue to determine inequalities in the possibilities of using the
internet” (Bentivegna 2001: 58). “With regard to the characteristics of the pool of users we should
point out that in all countries in which empirical surveys have been performed the profile of the
surfer is usually male, with a high educational level and an equally high income” (Bentivegna 2001:
53). “These technologies are also exclusive in the sense that access is far from universal and the
capabilities and means are not evenly distributed to allow the ‘global’ citizen to use and operate
these communication tools efficiently and effectively (Lazarus & Lora, 2000; O’Donnell, 2001)”
(Cammaerts and Van Audenhove 2005: 183).
The political economy of cyberspace also renders problematic the notion of an egalitarian
public sphere in cyberspace. The internet has “become an integrated element in the dynamics of
global capitalism (Schiller, 1999). Market logic…serves to constrain the extent and forms of
representation for civic purposes…, diminishing its potential as a properly civic, communicative
space (Lessig, 1999, 2001)” (Dahlgren 2005: 151) “One study found that only 42% of websites are
listed by the totality of major search engines (Introna and Nissenbaum, 2000)…[which constitutes]
a distributional system that promotes the mainstreaming of the Web experience” (Curran 2003:
233). Indeed, “the still limited diffusion of Internet connections requires a basic distinction between
those countries in which it may be possible to create an electronic public sphere and those in which
it is possible both now and in the near future” (Bentivegna 2001: 53).
Indeed, the problems of internet exclusion are evident in Curran’s (2003) case study of
openDemocracy, an online magazine that centres on discussion of the political issues of the day.
The participation in this site drastically under-represents Africa and Latin America, while overrepresenting the US and northern Europe. Indeed, the fact that the site is indicative of the internetwide problem that “85 percent of web content is in English”, while only “10 percent of people
around the world speak English as their first language (Kamarae, 1999: 49)” (Curran 2003: 238).
Moreover the case of openDemocracy evinces the “closed circuits of discourse” amongst
individuals who think similarly about a given topic (Curran 2003: 238). Furthermore it is
questionable how much impact the internet has when “as Davis notes, ‘the most likely internet
users…[are] the affluent, the most common users of Internet political information…[are] already
politically interested, and those who will use Internet for political activity…[are] primarily those
who are already politically active’ (1999: 168)” (Bentivegna 2001: 59).
In this vein, Curran (2003: 239) identifies the “segregated nature” of internet discourse:
“The global public sphere is subdivided into specialist communities, with specific forms of
knowledge, organized interests, established NGOs, and well-trodden paths to multilayered power.
Much of their debate entails talking to each other in enclosed and almost apolitical ways”. Indeed,
PERO Working Paper - Theorising online public engagement with research impacts
“if the Internet facilitates an impressive communicative heterogeneity, the negative side of this
development is…fragmentation, with public spheres veering towards disparate islands of
communication, as Galdston (2003) has argued” (Dahlgren 2005: 152). Sunstein (2001)
emphasises the danger of individual internet users becoming disconnected from society by virtue of
their ‘self-insulation’ (p. 192) within internet ‘enclaves’. “In short it is argued that these virtual
[online] communities cannot replace the ‘civic community that Putnam (1993) has portrayed”
(Bentivegna 2001: 57).
The political economy of the internet is particularly troubling when considering its potential
as a transnational public sphere, because “any a priori exclusions of any segment of the population
collides with democracy’s claim to universalism” (Dahlgren 2001: 36). Perhaps it is this very
universalism that is the problem however. As Fraser (1992) points out, the goal of bringing
everyone into a single conversation based upon consensus contains in-built negative implications
for minorities and excluded groups in society. Embracing diversity and dissensus within the context
of multiple overlapping ‘sphericules’ (Gitlin 1998) may be a more desirable- and realistic- goal for
promoting freedom and emancipation within society.
References
Bennett, W. (2003). New Media Power: The internet and global activism. In Couldry, N. & Curran,
J. Contesting Media Power. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield. (Pp. 17-37)
Bentivegna, S. (2001). Politics and new media. In Lievrouw, L. and Livingstone, S. Handbook of
New Media. London: Sage. (Pp. 50-61)
Cammaerts, B. and Van Audenhove, L. (2005). Online political debate, unbounded citizenship, and
the problematic nature of a transnational public sphere. Political Communication, 22: 179196.
Castells, M. (2001). The Internet Galaxy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Castells, M. (2004). The Power of Identity (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Curran, J. Global journalism: A case study of the internet. In Couldry, N. & Curran, J. Contesting
Media Power. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield. (Pp. 227-241).
Dahlgren, P. (2001). The public sphere and the net: Structure, space, and communication. (p. 3355). In L. W. Bennett and R. M. Entman, Mediated politics: Communication in the future of
democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dahlgren, P. (2005). The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and
deliberation. Political Communication, 22: 147-162.
Downing, J. D. H. (2003). The independent media center movement and the anarchist socialist
tradition. In Couldry, N. & Curran, J. Contesting Media Power. Oxford: Rowman and
Littlefield. (Pp. 243-257).
Gitlin, T. (1998). Public sphere or public sphericules? In J. Curran & M. Liebes (Eds.), Media,
ritual and identity. London: Routledge. (Pp. 168-175)
Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. MIT Press.
Horkheimer, M. & Adorno T. (1979). ‘The culture industry’. In The Dialectic of Enlightenment (by
M. Horkheimer & Adorno, T.).
Kahn, R. & Kellner, L. (2004). New media and internet activism: From the ‘Battle of Seattle’ to
blogging. New Media & Society, 6: 87-95.
Scott, A. & Street, J. (2001). From media politics to e-protest? The use of popular culture and new
media in parties and social movements. In F. Webster (Ed.) Culture and politics in the
information age: A new politics. London: Routledge. (Pp. 32-51)
Sunstein, C. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
PERO Working Paper - Theorising online public engagement with research impacts
Public Engagement with Research as an Intervention in Processes of Social Change
Basic Theory of Social Change
Social change is a complex, dynamic and ever-changing process. In prior theoretical work, a
‘cyclical model of social change’ has been articulated (Jensen & Wagoner 2009; Jensen & Wagoner
2012). In this work social change has been defined as a continuous, long-term, contingent and
culturally bound process. Fundamentally, this process can be seen as the playing out of dynamic
tensions between ideals and practices.
‘Ideals’ are norms that are held at the level of discourse and ideas, while ‘practices’ are
norms that are manifest in concrete social and professional practices, the bases of which
practitioners themselves may not be able to reflexively articulate. Although these two dimensions of
social and professional life overlap to a greater or lesser degree in particular contexts, they can be
fruitfully conceptualized as interdependent levels existing in a dynamic and generative tension with
one another (see also Raudsepp, 2012). Indeed, as we discuss below, there are distinctive processes
that emerge from the interplay between these two dimensions, ensuring that social change is
ongoing and yet society remains relatively stable most of the time. (Jensen & Wagoner 2012, p.
324)
The four aspects of social change are summarised below:
(1) Communication processes: Here we find a ‘struggle over ideas’, where different social
actors clash over normative ideals, for example, how to conceive of the public’s
understanding of science (Jensen & Wagoner, 2009) or how to represent new objects,
practices or scientific developments and ideas [...]. Through these processes, new
ascendant ideas and norms emerge. There is a possible but not necessary relationship
between the ascendance of a norm [...] and the codification of that norm in law [...]. At
the same time, an ascendant norm may never find its way into law. Moreover, the
ascendance of a norm is shaped by far more than the fraught construct of public opinion.
Access to media (Holliman, 2012; Jensen, 2012a), economic and symbolic power
(Jensen, 2012b), cultural and social capital (Mendoza, 2012), rhetorical and artistic skill
(Taylor-Sayles, 2012; Ritchie, 2012) and macroscopic changes in the broader sociohistorical context (Ryabchuk, 2012) are but a few of the many factors influencing
outcomes at the level of communication processes.
(2) Implementation processes: Here ascendant ideas meet social and professional practices.
Once a normative ideal is established it needs to be implemented in concrete social
practices, where it often meets resistance.
(3) Public Engagement Processes: Here social and professional practices and ascendant
ideas come into contact with the behaviours, norms and pre-existing ideas of affected
publics and stakeholders.
(4) Deliberative processes: If rejection processes become sufficiently widespread at either
the implementation or public engagement level, a new norm can become subject to
reflexive scrutiny. Some social actors may begin to articulate inconsistencies in practice,
problems in the public or stakeholder reception of the norm or basic conceptual flaws
that went unnoticed or were overridden in the norm’s initial ascendance (e.g. see
Ritchie, 2012). At this point, such actors may begin to formulate strategies for
overcoming these problems, thereby returning the cycle to the same communication
processes that spawned the norm for renewed debate and reframing.
PERO Working Paper - Theorising online public engagement with research impacts
‘Meta’ factors in social change: This volume highlights a number of ‘meta’ factors that
affect all of the social change processes described above. Factors such as power, voice,
mass media, symbolic representation, identity, leadership, struggles over scarce
resources and visual representations modulate who gets heard and has influence in each
aspect of social change. Issues of access to influential institutions and resources, the
capability to express oneself effectively and the negotiation of identities in particular
social and cultural contexts affect the development and embedding of new ideas and
norms in society.
The description of this theory as positing a ‘cycle of social change’ highlights the contingent
tendency of social change to develop feedback loops and to recapitulate similar debates in different
guises (e.g. Jensen & Weasel, 2006) when implementation and public engagement processes reveal
problems, tensions and resistance. [...] The model’s definition of social change as ‘cyclical’ also
emphasizes that the beginning of any narrative account of a particular example of social change will
necessarily have an arbitrary jumping off point, given that the present is always influenced by the
past and pre-existing structures in society. Therefore no ‘aspect’ or ‘process’ of social change can
be considered an absolute beginning, nor should the processes defined above be understood as rigid
steps in a linear process. Rather, these are heuristic distinctions, which are designed to offer analytic
focus for a complex and dynamic phenomenon.
Applying a Theory of Social Change to Online Public Engagement with Research
Online public engagement with research can be seen as intervening in up to three of the processes
of social change, which are elaborated below.
Communication Processes
Communication processes are the sites of intellectual, rhetorical and discursive struggles over how
something should be represented, that is, about how to frame social reality. Online public
engagement with research has the potential to create new sites of intellectual, rhetorical and
discursive struggle, promoting changes in how we think about an issue or domain of life. In
particular, online discussions stemming from public engagement with research represent one
manifestation of communication processes that can lead to transformations in society. Of course,
such social change is not necessary or pre-determined, and online discussions may lead nowhere.
Yet, this kind of discussion and debate is a crucial element of the social change process.
Of course, new media open up alternative avenues for discussion and in some cases for
dissident voices to contest dominant ideas. In the case of the climate change debate for example,
online discussion was used to challenge the work of scientists seeking to form and maintain a
consensus about anthropogenic climate change (Holliman, 2012). Thus, we should be aware that
social change does not necessarily follow a progressive path, nor does public engagement always
lead to positive outcomes for society. It is possible that we might see a backlash against new
research ideas online, or that the researcher’s ideas are misinterpreted or misapplied. These are the
dangers of online public engagement with research, which also apply to conventional mass media.
Public Engagement Processes
Once a new research idea is established through, for example, the publication of a report, a journal
article or a book, these ideas may confront a broad spectrum of publics, who may not be fully aware
of the original context within which this research developed. The new research idea encounters
behaviours, norms and pre-existing ideas and beliefs of affected publics and stakeholders, with a
particularly high risk of conflict or active rejection when affected publics have entrenched
economic or personal interests, values and habits at stake (Holliman, 2012; Jensen, 2012a).
Just as in the implementation aspect of social change, the degree to which the new research
idea(s) fits with ‘common sense’ notions held by publics is the most significant factor in the
PERO Working Paper - Theorising online public engagement with research impacts
dialectic of acceptance / rejection operating in publics’ engagement with new research ideas. Public
reaction to new norms, ideas or technologies may be unpredictable and seem irrational to experts,
policymakers or practitioners (e.g. see Jensen, 2012b). Yet, the ‘meta’ aspects of social changepower, voice, mass media, symbolic representation, identity, leadership, struggles over scarce
resources and visual representations- continue to exert strong influence on the ways in which the
public engagement aspects of social change play out.
Online public engagement processes are also influenced by the range of intermediary
institutions in society that communicate new ideas online to publics, including museums, zoos,
universities and art galleries. Religion, music and other forms of creative expression all have a role
to play in the construction of public opinion about a new idea. Such intermediary institutions
provide opportunities for public sentiment about a new norm or idea to ‘pool’ and connect up with
others facing similar issues or having similar concerns.
The online context offers the opportunity for research ideas to reach publics well beyond the
physical reach of the researchers. The uptake of these ideas may occur in unpredictable ways.
Reception of the new ideas may also move back and forth between online and offline contexts. The
ways in which publics react to the new idea may in turn influence others’ reactions to the the new
idea. This makes the online setting a hive of mutual influence in which the direct communication of
research ideas to individuals unfiltered is a rare scenario. Instead the mutually influencing setting
allows for the potential pooling of perspectives, which may be more likely to occur in internet
enclaves where a particular viewpoint or interest is shared amongst users. However, it is just as
likely that users will take radically different views in responding to the new idea, sometimes
rejecting the idea forcefully. Other times, rejection of the new idea may be partial and carefully
justified. Ultimately, what we see are highly variegated patterns of user response to research ideas,
with some adopting those ideas, some rejecting and some negotiating a partial acceptance and
rejection. This heterogeneity in public responses to new ideas is not unusual but this online setting
holds the potential to accelerate the process of pooling and fracturing of audience responses.
Deliberative Processes
A proposed or current law, norm or idea can become subject to reflexive scrutiny online. Some
online discussants may begin to articulate inconsistencies in practice, problems in the public or
stakeholder reception of the proposed law, norm or idea, or identify basic conceptual flaws that
went unnoticed or were overridden in the norms initial ascendance. At this point, such discussants
may reach for research ideas to articulate or evidence claims about the problems they have
identified, or to point to possible solutions for overcoming these problems. The main point here is
that deliberative processes involve re-opening of prior debates and discussions and the introduction
of new and alternative symbols and representations, which are taken forward into social change
processes.
Conclusion
This discussion of social change theory as applied to online public engagement with research has
highlighted the potential role of online discourse in fostering social change processes. This is a
preliminary contribution to theoretical discussion about the role of research ideas in social change,
which has highlighted some of the specific dimensions of social change to which public
engagement with research could contribute. Further theoretical and empirical work is needed to
flesh out these initial ideas and subject them to empirical investigation.
References
Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (B. Brewster, Trans.) Lenin and
philosophy and other essays. London: New Left Books.
PERO Working Paper - Theorising online public engagement with research impacts
Baert, P. (2001). Jürgen Habermas. In B. S. Turner & A. Elliott (Eds.), Profiles in contemporary
social theory (pp. 84-93). London: Sage.
Bartlett, F. C. (1923). Psychology and Primitive Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bartlett, F. C. (1928). Social Constructiveness: Pt. 1. British Journal of Psychology, 18, 388-391.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bauman, Z. (1999). In search of politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action (Gisele Sapiro (Chap. 1-2) & Randal
Johnson (Chap. 4-5), Trans.). Cambridge: Polity.
Bourdieu, P. (2005). The political field, the social science field, and the journalistic field. In R.
Benson & E. Neveu (Eds.), Bourdieu and the journalistic field (pp. 29-47). Cambridge:
Polity.
Cornejo, C. (2012). Commentary: The earth, Olympus and the commuter bus. In B. Wagoner, E.
Jensen & J. Oldmeadow (Eds.), Culture and Social Change:Transforming society through
the power of ideas. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishing.
Cornish, F. (2012). Collectives may protest, but how do authorities respond? In B. Wagoner, E.
Jensen & J. Oldmeadow (Eds.), Culture and Social Change:Transforming society through
the power of ideas. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishing.
Drury, J., Reicher, S., & Stott, C. (2012). The psychology of collective action: Crowds and change.
In B. Wagoner, E. Jensen & J. Oldmeadow (Eds.), Culture and Social Change:
Transforming society through the power of ideas. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age
Publishing.
Eley, G. (1992). Places, publics, and political cultures: Placing Habermas in the nineteenth century.
In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 289-339). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Gould, C. C. (1996). Diversity and democracy: Representing differences. In S. Benhabib (Ed.),
Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 171-186).
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Lifeworld and System: A critique of
functionalist reason (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere (T. Burger & F. Lawrence,
Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harré, R. (1998). The epistemology of social representations. In U. Flick (Ed.), The psychology of
the social (pp. 129-137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haslam, A., & Reicher, S. (2012). Change we can believe in: The role of social identity, cognitive
alternatives and leadership in group mobilization and transformation. In B. Wagoner, E.
Jensen & J. Oldmeadow (Eds.), Culture and Social Change: Transforming society through
the power of ideas. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishing.
Holliman, R. (2012). The struggle for scientific consensus: Communicating climate science around
COP-15. In B. Wagoner, E. Jensen & J. Oldmeadow (Eds.), Culture and Social Change:
Transforming society through the power of ideas. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age
Publishing.
Jensen, E. (2009). Genetic futures and the media. The Encyclopaedia of Life Sciences. Chichester:
John Wiley Publishing.
Jensen, E. (2012a). Mediating social change: Irony, hybridity and corporate censorship. In B.
Wagoner, E. Jensen & J. Oldmeadow (Eds.), Culture and Social Change: Transforming
society through the power of ideas. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishing.
PERO Working Paper - Theorising online public engagement with research impacts
Jensen, E. (2012b). Scientific controversies and the struggle for symbolic power. In B. Wagoner, E.
Jensen & J. Oldmeadow (Eds.), Culture and Social Change: Transforming society through
the power of ideas. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishing.
Jensen, E. & Buckley, N. (Published online before print October 31, 2012). ‘Why people attend
science festivals: Interests, motivations and self-reported benefits of public engagement with
research’.
Jensen, E., & Wagoner, B. (2009). A cyclical model of social change. Culture & Psychology, 15(2),
217-228.
Jensen, E. & Wagoner, B. (2012). ‘Conclusion: Cycles of social change’. In Ibid. In B. Wagoner, E.
Jensen and J. Oldmeadow (Eds.), Culture and Social Change: Transforming society through
the power of ideas. (2012, Information Age Publishers).
Jensen, E., & Weasel, L. H. (2006). Abortion rhetoric in American news coverage of human
cloning. New Genetics and Society, 25(3), 305-324.
Moscovici, S. (2008). Psychoanalysis: Its image and its public. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ritchie, L. D. (2012). Metaphor and stories in discourse about personal and social change. In B.
Wagoner, E. Jensen & J. Oldmeadow (Eds.), Culture and Social Change: Transforming
society through the power of ideas. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishing.
Ryabchuk, A. (2012). Changing fields, changing habitus: The field of public service in post-Soviet
Ukraine. In B. Wagoner, E. Jensen & J. Oldmeadow (Eds.), Culture and Social
Change:Transforming society through the power of ideas. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age
Publishing.
Ryan, M. P. (1992). Gender and public access: Women's politics in nineteenth-century America. In
C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 259-288). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Sammut, G., Andreouli, E., & Sartawi, M. (2012). Social influence and social change: States and
strategies of social capital. In B. Wagoner, E. Jensen & J. Oldmeadow (Eds.), Culture and
Social Change: Transforming society through the power of ideas. Charlotte, N.C.:
Information Age Publishing.
Wagoner, B. (2012). The meeting of ideas: Diffusion, dialogical interaction and social change. In B.
Wagoner, E. Jensen & J. Oldmeadow (Eds.), Culture and Social Change: Transforming
society through the power of ideas. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishing.
Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
PERO Working Paper - Theorising online public engagement with research impacts
Online Public Engagement as Diffusion of Innovation (by Dr David Ritchie)
Rogers (2003) defines diffusion as “the process by which an innovation is communicated through
certain channels over time among the members of a social system.” Rogers argues that the spread
of a new idea or technology is often mediated by opinion leaders, people who have the ability to
influence others, and change agents, people who intentionally seek to influence others in a direction
deemed desirable by the agent or agency. In his early research, Rogers identified five stages in the
diffusion process: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. Crucial to
the study of diffusion is the identification of communication channels through which potential
adopters learn about the idea or practice. In general, both mass communication and interpersonal
communication channels have proven to be important, usually in interaction with one another.
Rogers’s early work focused on the adoption of new technology by farmers, and much of the
subsequent research in diffusion of innovations has emphasized the adoption of new technologies or
practices, including health-related practices and behaviors. However, the basic concepts can also be
applied to the diffusion of knowledge about new scientific research, including the diffusion among
other scientists.
One of the most common methods used to identify interpersonal networks through which a
new idea diffuses requires semi-structured survey research, in which respondents are first asked
about their knowledge of the innovation and, if they know about it, their attitudes toward it (i.e.,
their stage of adoption). Participants in this form of research are then asked about sources from
which they have learned about the innovation; the responses can be used to identify the media
channels as well as interpersonal networks involved. This form of research can provide very useful
information but it is quite labor-intensive.
Diffusion through media channels, in particular on-line channels, can be assessed much
more efficiently. To the extent that interpersonal communication about a new idea takes place in
electronic channels, these can also be studied through these techniques.
To study diffusion through electronic channels, such as blogs and scheduled media
programs, a preliminary assessment should determine the key channels. This can be accomplished
by means of a straightforward keyword search, which will identify the channels in which the
innovation is mentioned and the frequency and timing of mention in each channel. If the search is
broken down by time segment (days or weeks, depending on the topic) it is possible to develop a
crude graph of how discussion has changed over time. This preliminary study can be used to
identify time periods and channels of greatest interest and to devise a sampling scheme for more
detailed analysis.
In preparation for a more detailed study, a small sample of texts from various channels and
times should be analyzed to identify key terms for more detailed study. These might include
metaphors and stories as well as technical terms and proper names. Errors or distortions should also
be identified if they appear in multiple texts. Keyword searches on each of these will provide a
time-line for introduction and adoption of these terms.
If resources permit, it will be useful to analyze each text in the sample to find evidence of
influence by earlier sources, which might be published research, news articles, blog posts, etc.
Phrases like “I read in...” or “according to so-and-so” will provide evidence; repetition of
idiosyncratic words, phrases, and stories, whether attributed or not, will also provide evidence. This
phase of the research will also provide a means for detecting and analyzing the origin and spread of
errors and misinformation. In general, the more distinctive the phrase, story, or mistake, the better
the evidence of influence. This can be partially automated through key word searching, but
qualitative coding by human research assistants will improve accuracy. This will help to identify
opinion leaders and change agents; it will also provide the material for creating a diagram of the
diffusion network. (It is not uncommon for multiple sources to appear; if they do, it will also be
worthwhile to trace the pattern over time of cross-referencing among these sources.)
Depending on the size of the sample and the resources available, the above-described analyses may
be primarily qualitative / interpretive, but if resources permit, the qualitative phase should culminate
PERO Working Paper - Theorising online public engagement with research impacts
in development of code sheets to be used in a quantitative content analysis, with time and source as
two variables (Krippendorff, 2003).
Over longer time-frames, it is also worth identifying and coding words and phrases
associated with degree of acceptance, for example, when “controversial theory” changes to
“theory,” and finally the idea is simple cited as established fact. This may provide a direct link to
Rogers’s “stages of adoption,” or it may provide a basis for developing an analogous framework
specific to the target innovation. Again, once a preliminary analysis has been conducted by hand to
identify key terms, this can be partially automated.
Each of the time-lines identified in this research should be annotated to show crucial
exogenous events. These will vary by the nature of the specific topic, but would certainly include
press conferences and media interviews, publication of key articles and other texts, and relevant
historical events, such as a record-breaking heat-wave for topics related to climate change.
References
Krippendorff, K. (2003). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. (Sage).
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations, 5th Edition. (Free Press).