Issue Oriented Public Involvement - Michelle Sumovich

Noortje Marres’s article on public involvement in controversy is a challenging one. She uses several literary examples from works which are likely equally challenging, so this article becomes a bit soupy to the layman. However, there are several points of clarity wherein Marres brings it all together and, I must admit, hashing this article out in the classroom was extremely valuable.

Her paper argues for increased public awareness and involvement in controversial issues which currently tend to be formed and framed by institutions before the public becomes interested. Her feeling is that when institutions act alone in defining what the issues are, they set the foundation, the limits, and the boundaries for public discourse. An important point is that institutions such as government and commerce have no real incentive to listen to public opinion. It is much easier for them to form their platform and allow public supporters and opponents to fall in line. This concept is intriguing to me, and I think that it can be evidenced by looking at many of the large-scale modern controversies that are argued today. Generally there are two opposing sides to many controversies, such as pro- and anti- or liberal and conservative. The public is large and varied, and I assume that the institutional framing of issues supports this simple model of X vs. Y. If issue formation were to increase within the public sphere, I think that we would begin seeing more variability within discourse.

To address this goal, Marres would like to see STS studies become increasingly focused on “issue-oriented” rather than “object-oriented” controversy. Her feeling is that researchers are currently too focused on objects of controversy; for example oil, pharmaceutical drugs, and national borders. Focusing on these objects, however, sometimes results in the dismissal of the fact that there are people behind them, effected by them, and producing them. This course has encouraged us to appreciate a recognition of the players or actants that are involved in a controversy, and I think that is what Marres is arguing for as well. Moreover, if her plea resulted in a trend of increased disclosure about the players and actors, the public and laymen would be less dependent on the expertise of the institution to put the pieces together for them. My point being, that the public does not typically have the time to become expert on the spectrum of players in controversy, but a movement to educate readers about people would 1. provoke interest in issues and 2. make bringing the public up to speed seemingly easier. Also, if this were the standard, the public may effectively become more comfortable with “the upstream” by critically judging expertise by what issues, people, and concerns are addressed or more importantly not addressed within scientific literature.

I have a personal example to share about the power of non-institutionalized public involvement, specifically through blogging. About five years ago, a friend of mine with no formal college education, whom I worked with at a retail store decided that she would like to educate herself about politics. She began researching government policy and blogging about her observations, gaining a following among colleagues. After several years of building a foundation in the blogoshpere, Sarah began volunteering for local campaigns. Now this self-educated woman who made political involvement her personal goal only five years ago, is in Washington working as Jeff Merkley’s deputy press secretary. Her story is personally inspirational to me, but Marres’s article has augmented my perception of the importance of such communication.