Meaningful citizen engagement in science and technology: What would it really take?

Science Communication

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 126-136

  Powell, Maria C ^a,b   Colin, Mathilde ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b Bradley Memorial Building   (United States)

Author keywords

Citizen engagement; Lay citizens; Nanotechnology; Science and technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 49149092556     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547008320520     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Barney, D. (2006). The morning after: Citizen engagement in technological society. Techne, 9 (3). 23-31.
2. Blok, A. (2007). Experts on public trial: On democratizing expertise through a Danish consensus conference. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 163-182.
3. Fischer, F. (2000) Citizens, experts and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC, and London: Duke University Press.
4. Gavelin, K., Wilson, R., & Doubleday, R. (2007). Democratic technologies? Final report of the nanotechnology engagement group (NEG). London: Involve.
5. Goven, J. (2003). Deploying the consensus conference in New Zealand: Democracy and de-problematization. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 243-440.
6. Grunig, J.E., & Grunig, L.A. (2001). Guidelines for formative and evaluative research in public affairs. A Report for the Department of Energy Office of Science.
7. Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the "new" scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36, 299-320.
8. Kleinman, D. L. (Ed.). (2000). Science, technology, and democracy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
9. Kleinman, D.L., & Powell, M. (2007). Science literacy and civic engagement: Learning from a consensus conference. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Science communication for all (Vol. 151, pp. 398-409). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
10. Kleinman, D.L., Powell, M., Grice, J., Adrian, J., & Lobes, C. (2007). A toolkit for democratizing science and technology policy: The practical mechanics of organizing a consensus conference. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 27, 154-169.
11. Petersen, A., Anderson, A., Wilkinson, C., & Stuart, A. (2007). Nanotechnology, risk and society. Health, Risk & Society, 9, 117-124.
12. Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T.L. (2007). What factors predict scientists' intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities ? Science Communication, 29, 242-263.
13. Powell, M., & Kleinman, D.L. (2008). Building citizen capacities for participation in techno-scientific decision making: The democratic virtues of the consensus conference model. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 329-348.
14. Rowe, G., Marsh, R., & Frewer, L.J. (2004). Evaluation of a deliberative conference. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29, 88-121.
15. Seifert, F. (2006). Local steps in an international career: A Danish-style consensus conference in Austria. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 73-88.
16. Taylor, P.L. (2007). Rules of engagement. Nature, 450 (7167). 163-164.