Files in this item
Public engagement and argumentation in science
Item metadata
dc.contributor.author | Ivani, Silvia | |
dc.contributor.author | Dutilh Novaes, Catarina | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-08-11T11:30:36Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-08-11T11:30:36Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2022-08-09 | |
dc.identifier | 280829295 | |
dc.identifier | be3bc884-51a2-4edd-9fb2-d88877c7ee13 | |
dc.identifier | 85135712837 | |
dc.identifier | 000839527300001 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Ivani , S & Dutilh Novaes , C 2022 , ' Public engagement and argumentation in science ' , European Journal for Philosophy of Science , vol. 12 , no. 3 , 54 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-022-00480-y | en |
dc.identifier.issn | 1879-4912 | |
dc.identifier.other | Jisc: 515847 | |
dc.identifier.other | publisher-id: s13194-022-00480-y | |
dc.identifier.other | manuscript: 480 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10023/25824 | |
dc.description | This research is generously supported by the European Research Council with grant ERC-2017-CoG 771074 for the project ‘The Social Epistemology of Argumentation’. | en |
dc.description.abstract | Public engagement is one of the fundamental pillars of the European programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020. The programme encourages engagement that not only fosters science education and dissemination, but also promotes two-way dialogues between scientists and the public at various stages of research. Establishing such dialogues between different groups of societal actors is seen as crucial in order to attain epistemic as well as social desiderata at the intersection between science and society. However, whether these dialogues can actually help attaining these desiderata is far from obvious. This paper discusses some of the costs, risks, and benefits of dialogical public engagement practices, and proposes a strategy to analyse these argumentative practices based on a three-tiered model of epistemic exchange. As a case study, we discuss the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy, arguably a result of suboptimal public engagement, and show how the proposed model can shed new light on the problem. | |
dc.format.extent | 29 | |
dc.format.extent | 1244497 | |
dc.language.iso | eng | |
dc.relation.ispartof | European Journal for Philosophy of Science | en |
dc.subject | Public engagement | en |
dc.subject | Responsible research and innovation | en |
dc.subject | Vaccine hesitancy | en |
dc.subject | Argumentation | en |
dc.subject | Trust in science | en |
dc.subject | LB2300 Higher Education | en |
dc.subject | T-NDAS | en |
dc.subject | SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being | en |
dc.subject.lcc | LB2300 | en |
dc.title | Public engagement and argumentation in science | en |
dc.type | Journal article | en |
dc.contributor.institution | University of St Andrews. Arché Philosophical Research Centre for Logic, Language, Metaphysics and Epistemology | en |
dc.contributor.institution | University of St Andrews. Philosophy | en |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s13194-022-00480-y | |
dc.description.status | Peer reviewed | en |
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.