Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 221-241

  MacOubrie, Jane ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33644899109     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662506056993     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Bainbridge, W.S. (2002) "Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology," Journal of Nanoparticle Research 4: 561 - 570.
2. Billig, M. (1993) "Studying the Thinking Society: Social Representations, Rhetoric, and Attitudes", in G.M. Breakwell and D.V. Cantor (eds) Empirical Approaches to Social Representations, pp. 39 - 62. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
3. Breakwell, G.M. and Cantor, D.V. (1993) Empirical Approaches to Social Representations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
4. Burnstein, E. and Santis, K. (1981) "Attitude Polarization in Groups", in R. Petty, T. Ostrom and T. Brock (eds) Cognitive Responses in Persuasion, pp. 197 - 215. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Cegala, D.J., Dewhurst, M., Galanes, G., Burggraf, G., Thorpe, J.M., Keyton, J. and Makay, L. (1989) "A Study of Participants' Judgments of Topic Change during Conversation: Global versus Local Definitions," Communication Reports 2: 62 - 71.
6. Cobb, M. and Macoubrie, J. (2004) "Public Perceptions about Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits, and Trust," Journal of Nanoparticle Research: An Interdisciplinary Forum for Nanoscale Science and Technology 6 (4). 395 - 405.
7. Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979) Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
8. Deutsch, M., and Gerard, H. (1955) "A Study of Normative and Informational Social Influences upon Individual Judgment," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51: 629 - 636.
9. Drexler, K.E. (1990) Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. New York: Fourth Estate.
10. Drexler, K.E. (1992) Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
11. Einseidel, E. and Thorne, B. (1999) "Public Responses to Uncertainty", in S.M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody and C.L. Rogers (eds) Communicating Uncertainty: Coverage of New and Controversial Science, pp. 43 - 57. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) "Building Theories from Case Study Research," Academy of Management Review 14: 532 - 550.
13. Ericsson, K.A. and Simon, H.A. (1993) Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. European Commission (2001) Eurobarometer 55.2: Europeans, Science and Technology. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
15. Farr, R.M. and Moscovici, S. (1984) Social Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Geist, P. and Chandler, T.S. (1984) "Account Analysis of Influence in Group Decision-making," Communication Monographs 51: 67 - 78.
17. Goven, J. (2003) "Deploying the Consensus Conference in New Zealand: Democracy and De-problematization," Public Understanding of Science 12: 423 - 440.
18. Griffin, R.J., Neuwirth, K., Giese, J. and Dunwoody, S. (2002) "Linking the Heuristic-Systematic Model and Depth of Processing," Communication Research 29: 705 - 732.
19. Hargreaves, I., Lewis, J. and Speers, T. (2003) Towards a Better Map: Science, the Public, and the Media. London: Economic and Social Research Council.
20. Hornig, S. (1992) "Framing Risk: Audience and Reader Factors," Journalism Quarterly 69: 679 - 690.
21. Huguet, P., Latane, B. and Bourgeois, M. (1998) "The Emergence of a Social Representation of Human Rights via Interpersonal Communication: Empirical Evidence for the Convergence of Two Theories," European Journal of Social Psychology 28: 831 - 847.
22. Kaplan, M.F. (1989) "Task, Situational, and Personal Determinants of Influence Processes in Group Decisionmaking," Advances in Group Processes 6: 87 - 105.
23. Kaplan, M.F. and Miller, L.E. (1987) "Group Decision Making and Normative versus Informational Influence: Effects of Type of Issue and Assigned Decision Rule," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53: 306 - 313.
24. Kalven, H. and Zeisel, H. (1966) The American Jury. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
25. Krueger, R.A. (1994) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
26. Macoubrie, J. (2002) "Logical Argument Structures in Decision-making," Argumentation: An International Journal of Reasoning 17: 291 - 313.
27. Miles, M. and Huberman, A.M. (1984) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
28. Miller, J.D. (1998) "The Measurement of Scientific Literacy," Public Understanding of Science 7: 203 - 223.
29. Moscovici, S. (1984) "The Phenomena of Social Representations", in R.M. Farr and S. Moscovici (eds) Social Representations, pp. 3 - 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Moscovici, S. (2001) Social Representations. New York: New York University Press.
31. O'Keefe, D.J. (1977) "Two Concepts of Argument," Journal of the American Forensic Association 13: 121 - 128.
32. Perelman, C. (1982) The Realm of Rhetoric. Notre Dame, IL: University of Notre Dame Press.
33. Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969) The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
34. Priest, S.H. (1995) "Information Equity, Public Understanding of Science, and the Biotechnology Debate," Journal of Communication 45: 39 - 54.
35. Regis, E. (1995) Nano: The Emerging Science of Nanotechnology. Remaking the World Molecule by Molecule. Boston: Little, Brown.
36. Reichmann, R. (1978) "Conversational Coherency," Cognitive Science 2: 283 - 327.
37. Reinhart, T. (1981) "Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics," Philosophica 27: 53 - 94.
38. Rieke, R.D. and Sillars, M.O. (1997) Argumentation and Critical Decision Making, 4th edn. New York: Longman.
39. Robins, R. (2001) "Overburdening Risk: Policy Frameworks and the Public Uptake of Gene Technology," Public Understanding of Science 10: 19 - 36.
40. Roco, M. (2003a) "Broader Societal Issues of Nanotechnology," Journal of Nanoparticle Research 5: 181 - 189.
41. Roco, M. (2003b) "Nanotechnology: Convergence with Modern Biology and Medicine," Current Opinion in Biotechnology 14: 337 - 346.
42. Rogers, C.L. (1999) "The Importance of Understanding Audiences", in S.M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody and C.L. Rogers (eds) Communicating Uncertainty: Coverage of New and Controversial Science, pp. 179 - 200. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. Schuler, E. (2004) "Perceptions of Risk and Nanotechnology", in D. Baird, A. Nordmann and J. Schummer (eds) Discovering the Nanoscale, pp. 279 - 284. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
44. Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D. and D.T. Campbell (2002) Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
45. Simon, H.A. (1976) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-making Processes in Administrative Organizations, 3rd edn. New York: Free Press.
46. Slovic, P. (1999) "Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-assessment Battlefield," Risk Analysis 19: 689 - 701.
47. Tracy, K. (1982) "On Getting the Point: Distinguishing 'Issues' from 'Events,' an Aspect of Conversational Coherence", in M. Burgoon (ed.) Communication Yearbook, pp. 279 - 301. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
48. Tracy, K. (1983) "The Issue-Event Distinction: A Rule of Conversation and its Scope Condition," Human Communication Research 9: 320 - 334.
49. US Census Bureau (2000) URL: http://factfinder.census.gov.
50. Wagner, W., Kronberger, N. and Seifert, F. (2002) "Collective Symbolic Coping with New Technology: Knowledge, Images, and Public Discourse," British Journal of Social Psychology 41: 323 - 343.
51. Walton, D. (1996) Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
52. Yin, R.K. (1989) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.