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.

公众参与是欧洲研究和创新地平线 2020计划的基本支柱之一. 该计划鼓励参与，不仅促进科学教育和传播，而且促进科学家和公众在不同研究阶段的双向对话。在不同的社会行为者群体之间建立这样的对话被认为是至关重要的，以便在科学与社会的交叉点上实现认知和社会需求。然而，这些对话是否真的有助于实现这些需求还远未可知。本文讨论了对话式公众参与实践的一些成本、风险和收益，并提出了一种基于认知交流的三层模型来分析这些争论性实践的策略。作为一个案例研究，我们讨论了疫苗犹豫的现象，可以说是公众参与不理想的结果，