Abstract

Fueled in part by governmental regulatory requirements and in part because of science’s own interest, public engagements are used to provide input about the policy, ethical, legal, social, and other impacts of science and technology. While public engagements show promise for ensuring that public values are incorporated into science and technology policy, current models of public engagement are disconnected from empirical evidence, are too general to guide decisions about public engagement in specific contexts or for specific purposes, and fail to adequately explain why public engagement outcomes differ across studies. In this paper we briefly review prior models, as well as an approach to building new models that we are currently employing in our research. We describe preliminary results from an experimental study conducted using our approach, which varies the cognitive goals emphasized by an engagement concerning nanotechnology, and the social context for giving input. Results suggest that variations in these factors do matter: Compared to individual input, group discussion of input questions resulted in less-focused, less argumentative, and more active and self-regulated forms of engagement; and emphasis on cognitive learning goals did appear to support learning to a greater extent than emphasis on critical thinking goals. We conclude that future experimental research is warranted and necessary to populate a social science of public engagement with models that answer questions of which public engagements work under what conditions, for what purposes, and why.