ABSTRACT
During the past two decades the theory and practice of Science Communication and Public Understanding of Science have evolved to stress the need for dialogue and engagement with audiences and publics (Cheng et al. 2008, Hagendijk and Irwin 2006, Irwin and Wynne 1996). In my own studies of the public debate about biotechnology (Horst 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008b, 2010a) I have been very inspired by these developments, and in 2004 I began working with a spatial designer in order to try to ‘have a taste of my own medicine’ about dialogic science communication. The collaboration resulted in the creation of two spatial installations (in 2005 and 2007), both of which were designed to communicate social science research on the social, cultural and ethical aspects of emerging biotechnologies in a way that would invite visitors to the installations to participate in shared sense-making about the issues. A central principle of the work with the installations was to make the invitation to participate as open as possible in order to facilitate an inclusive dialogue that would enable the visitors as well as the researcher and designer to learn from the encounter. In retrospect, however, I have come to consider the notions of ‘dialogue’ and ‘openness’ as much more complicated than I at first imagined. The shift from theory about engagement to actual practices has turned out to be more complex, interesting and frustrating than I expected. This chapter critically discusses my experiences with these two spatial installations as well as the epistemological and ethical implications of the ambition of doing dialogue.
