Simon J. Lock

Understanding the experiences of LGBTQ + university staff is crucial for uncovering workplace inequalities, strengthening inclusion policies, and ensuring that all staff and students can thrive in ...

Concerns about social justice are long standing across many fields. In this article, we outline key social justice concepts in relation to science communication, before examining the politics of science and science communication in more detail. We argue more focus is needed on how certain forms of politics and power travel through science and science communication in ways that have created, reinforced and/or ameliorated structural inequities. We argue that foregrounding social justice perspectives helps make explicit the power dynamics involved in creating and communicating knowledge. For us, this is a purposeful move that resists the urge to tidy away, ‘naturalise’ or otherwise hide politics and power. We invite readers to collectively interrogate our existing science communication theories and practices with a view to transforming them to be more just and meaningfully improve people’s lives and ecosystems.

Planning for large-scale infrastructure is expected to enable public participation, including in decisions on major renewable-energy infrastructure (REI). This paper examines the UK’s Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) decision-making processes, which offer a particular arrangement of the representation and contributions of local people, with limited opportunities for dialogue. The study uses focus groups to provide insights into public experiences of involvement in REI NSIP regulation. Findings confirm that there is a need to go beyond statutory requirements to enable full and equitable access to decision making on large-scale developments, and shows the importance of considering how procedures operate for specific communities. They also indicate the importance of local understandings of power within the context of REI decision making, and ad hoc relational work of planners in ‘non-dialogic’ participatory contexts.

There is currently a considerable emphasis on delivering major renewable energy infrastructure projects. Such projects will have impacts on local communities; some impacts may be perceived as positive but others will be viewed more negatively. Any just regulatory process for considering and permitting such infrastructure will need to heed the concerns that local communities voice. But what counts as a local voice? In this paper it is argued that the regulatory process plays a performative role, constructing what counts as a local voice. Furthermore, this has consequences for how regulatory deliberations proceed and the outcomes of regulatory processes. The empirical basis for this argument is a study of major offshore renewable energy infrastructure in England and Wales and the way that it is regulated through a specific regime – the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) regime established by the Planning Act 2008. Through a detailed study of eight projects that have passed through the regime, the analysis unfolds the way that the voices of local residents, local businesses, local NGOs and local authorities are constructed in the key boundary object of the Examining Authority’s report; it then draws out the implications for the mitigation measures that are negotiated. The research suggests that what counts as a local voice is constrained by how the performative role of the NSIPs regulatory regime differentiates between interests and suggests that new ways of giving voice to local people are required.

How does a regulatory regime cope with the demands of being evidence based? Given the contestation and uncertainties associated with knowledge claims, what are the processes at work? This paper addresses these questions in the context of a relatively new planning regime concerned with consenting major infrastructure projects, focussing on renewable energy. The paper adopts a Science and Technology Studies perspective, showing how black-boxing plays a key role in establishing knowledge-claims that can support regulatory decision-making. However, it also shows how black boxes do not stay closed and, hence, there is a need for other means of closing down debate.

This article examines a small body of decisions on applications for nationally significant wind energy projects under the Planning Act 2008, focussing on the ways in which Examining Authority reports respond to concerns expressed by publics. We draw three closely related conclusions. First, while there is nuance and flexibility, national policy tends to limit the scope for dissenting views to bear much weight, if any, in decision-making. Secondly, the strong national policy support for nationally significant wind farm development means that in many cases the Examining Authority is trying to find a way to deal with the publics’ concerns without dismissing them completely or classifying them as unimportant, and yet still allow the development to proceed. This leads to a focus on mitigation; a ‘how not whether’ approach to participation. Finally, albeit a little more tentatively, we conclude that these decisions confirm studies in a range of areas and jurisdictions that suggests a preference among decision makers for expert over lay constructions of knowledge.

This introductory essay looks back on the two decades since the journal Public Understanding of Science was launched. Drawing on the invited commentaries in this special issue, we can see narratives of continuity and change around the practice and politics of public engagement with science. Public engagement would seem to be a necessary but insufficient part of opening up science and its governance. Those of us who have been involved in advocating, conducting and evaluating public engagement practice could be accused of over-promising. If we, as social scientists, are going to continue a normative commitment to the idea of public engagement, we should therefore develop new lines of argument and analysis. Our support for the idea of public engagement needs qualifying, as part of a broader, more ambitious interest in the idea of publicly engaged science.

This article explores the space for public participation during the consenting process for a nationally significant wind energy or carbon capture and storage infrastructure project. Legal obligations to provide opportunities for public involvement in these processes can be found in national, EU and international law. However, an examination of strategic planning policy suggests that in practice, very little will be up for discussion at this stage. This is consistent with a certain mistrust of the public in high-level policy discourse on the technological change thought necessary for climate change mitigation. Legally entrenched rights to participate, coupled with limited opportunities to influence, create the danger that participation becomes a simple bureaucratic hurdle, frustrating for all concerned.