‘Not for me’
Reasons for (non)participation in science communication activities on Artificial Intelligence in the Netherlands
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 24215365 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Anne M Dijkstra (0000-0002-1699-5087, Communication Science, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands), Pien Spanjaard (0009-0002-4171-5291, Marketing and Communication, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Pages | 9636625261486785-9636625261486785 |
| Publication date | 2026-09-28 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Public Understanding of Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0963-6625 • E-ISSN: 1361-6609 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/09636625261486785 |
| PMID | 42803326 |
| OpenAlex | W7214631502 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 45 |
Artificial intelligence operates in a social context and affects everyone. Organizing science communication and engagement activities on the topic for all groups in society is therefore recommendable. However, research shows that mainly higher educated, already engaged citizens participate in science communication activities. To address this gap, our study collected insights from underrepresented citizens in the Netherlands regarding their views on and participation in science communication activities related to artificial intelligence. Using semi-structured interviews (n = 19), we qualitatively explored reasons for (non)participation. Participants knew more about AI than they initially reported, and worldviews were evoked in expressing both concerns and curiosity about AI. AI was deemed relevant but news about the topic was avoided due to a lack of trust. Non participation in engagement or communication activity was driven by both practical and social barriers. Following participants’ advice, we suggest a personal approach could help to make these activities more inviting.
barriers to participation · Citizen participation · public trust in science · Science communication · social barriers · Academic Publishing and Open Access · Artificial Intelligence · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Science Education and Perceptions
On Defining Artificial Intelligence
Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour
Reframing AI Discourse
The ethics of artificial intelligence
Artificial Intelligence, Responsibility Attribution, and a Relational Justification of Explainability
Science Communication Demands a Critical Approach That Centers Inclusion, Equity, and Intersectionality
Exclusion, Engagement, and Empathy
Feeling Left Out
Nanotechnology in Dutch science cafés
Drivers behind the public perception of artificial intelligence
Australian public understandings of artificial intelligence
On the promotion of safe and socially beneficial artificial intelligence
Participatory Paradoxes
Decolonial AI
Situating and Constructing Diversity in Semi-Structured Interviews
Limits and benefits of participatory agenda setting for research and innovation
The role of metaphors in the development of technologies. The case of the artificial intelligence
The forthcoming Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution
Who Sets the Agenda
Meaningful Citizen Engagement in Science and Technology
Reimagining publics and (non) participation
Science Communication
Intercoder Reliability in Qualitative Research
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |