Interpersonal discussion following citizen engagement about nanotechnology: What, if anything, do they say?

Science Communication

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 209-235

  Besley, John C ^a   Kramer, Victoria L ^a   Qingjiang Yao, ^a   Toumey, Chris ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Citizens'School; Deliberation; Engagement; Interpersonal discussion; Nanotechnology; Public participation; Science communication

Indexed keywords

EID: 55149116582     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547008324670     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Besley, J.C., & McComas, K.A. (2005). Framing justice: Using the concept of procedural justice to advance political communication research. Communication Theory, 15, 414-436.
2. Besley, J.C., & McComas, K.A. (2007). Reporting on fairness in civic life: Interviews with journalists about writing on local political leaders. Journalism Practice, 1, 339-355.
3. Besley, J.C., McComas, K.A., & Waks, L. (2006). Media use and the perceived justice of local science authorities. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83, 801-818.
4. Bohman, J., & Rehg, W. (1997). Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Bryce, J. (1888). The American commonwealth. New York: Macmillan.
6. Cable News Network. (2004). Election results. Retrieved October 9, 2007, from http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/
7. Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307-326.
8. Coleman, C.L. (1993). The influence of mass-media and interpersonal communication on societal and personal risk judgments. Communication Research, 20, 611-628.
9. Colquitt, J.A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C.P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3-58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Delli Carpini, M.X. (2004). Mediating democratic engagement: The impact of communications and citizens' involvement in political and civic life. In L. Lee Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research (pp. 395-434). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Delli Carpini, M.X., Cook, F.L., & Jacobs, L.R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315-344.
12. DeVellis, R.F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Einsiedel, E.F. (2002). Assessing a controversial medical technology: Canadian public consultations on xenotransplantation. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 315-331.
14. Einsiedel, E.F., Jelsoe, E., & Breck, T. (2001). Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 83-98.
15. Entman, R.M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43 (4). 51-58.
16. Fishkin, J.S. (1997). The voice of the people: Public opinion and democracy (2 nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17. Fishkin, J.S., & Laslett, P. (2003). Debating deliberative democracy. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
18. Fishkin, J.S., & Luskin, R.C. (1999). Bringing deliberation to the democratic dialogue. In M. McCombs & A. Reynolds (Eds.), The poll with the human face: The national issues convention experiment in political communication (pp. 3-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Gamson, W.A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1-37.
20. Gastil, J., & Levine, P. (2005). The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22. Gorss, J.B., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2005). The salience of small: Nanotechnology coverage in the American press, 1986-2004. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association New York, NY.
23. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24. Hardy, B.W., & Scheufele, D.A. (2005). Examining differential gains from Internet use: Comparing the moderating role of talk and online interactions. Journal of Communication, 55, 71-84.
25. Hayes, A.F. (2005 a). An SPSS procedure for computing Krippendorff's alpha (Version 1.0) [Computer software]. Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes/macros.htm
26. Hayes, A.F. (2005 b). Statistical methods for communication science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27. Hwang, Y., & Southwell, B.G. (2007). Can a personality trait predict talk about science? Sensation seeking as a science communication targeting variable. Science Communication, 29, 198-216.
28. Joss, S., & Bellucci, S. (Eds.). (2002). Participatory technology assessment: European perspectives. Gateshead, UK: Athenaeum Press / Centre for the Study of Democracy.
29. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
30. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An Introduction to its methodology (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31. Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people's choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Duell.
32. McComas, K.A., Arvai, J.L., & Besley, J.C. (in press). Linking public participation and decision making through risk communication. In R. L. Heath & D. O'Hair (Eds.), Handbook of crisis and risk communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33. McCombs, M.E., & Reynolds, A. (1999). The poll with a human face: The national issues convention experiment in political communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34. McLeod, J.M., Scheufele, D.A., & Moy, P. (1999). Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication, 16, 315-336.
35. Morton, T.A., & Duck, J.M. (2001). Communication and health beliefs: Mass and interpersonal influences on perceptions of risk to self and others. Communication Research, 28, 602-626.
36. Nir, L. (2005). Ambivalent social networks and their consequences for participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 422-442.
37. Nisbet, M.C., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2002). Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication, 23, 359-391.
38. Nisbet, M.C., & Scheufele, D.A. (2007, October). The future of public engagement. The Scientist, pp. 39-44.
39. Page, B.I. (1996). Who deliberates? Mass media in modern democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40. Price, V., & Neijens, P. (1997). Opinion quality in public opinion research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 9, 336-360.
41. Rasinski, K.A., Bradburn, N.M., & Lauen, D. (1999). Effects of NIC media coverage among the public. In M. McCombs & A. Reynolds (Eds.), The poll with a human face: The national issues convention experiment in political communication (pp. 145-165). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42. Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P.M. (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
43. Reynolds, A. (1999). Local television coverage of the NIC. In M. McCombs & A. Reynolds (Eds.), The Poll with a Human Face: The National Issues Convention Experiment in Political Communication (pp. 113-132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
44. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L.J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25, 3-29.
45. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L.J. (2004). Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science Technology & Human Values, 29, 512-557.
46. Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., & Pidgeon, N. (2005). Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: Reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? Public debate about transgenic crops. Public Understanding of Science, 14, 331-352.
47. Rowe, G., Marsh, R., & Frewer, L.J. (2004). Evaluation of a deliberative conference. Science Technology & Human Values, 29, 88-121.
48. Ryfe, D.M. (2002). The practice of deliberative democracy: A study of 16 deliberative organizations. Political Communication, 19, 359-377.
49. Scheufele, D.A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 103-122.
50. Scheufele, D.A. (2000). Talk or conversation? Dimensions of interpersonal discussion and their implications for participatory democracy. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 727-743.
51. Scheufele, D.A., Hardy, B.W., Brossard, D., Waismel-Manor, I.S., & Nisbet, E. (2006). Democracy based on difference: Examining the links between structural heterogeneity, heterogeneity of discussion networks, and democratic citizenship. Journal of Communication, 56, 728-753.
52. Scheufele, D.A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9-20.
53. Shah, D.V., & Scheufele, D.A. (2006). Explicating opinion leadership: Nonpolitical dispositions, information consumption, and civic participation. Political Communication, 23, 1-22.
54. Sjoberg, L. (1999). Perceived competence and motivation in industry and government as factors in risk perception. In G. Cvetkovich & R. E. Lofstedt (Eds.), Social trust and the management of risk (pp. 89-99, 179-180). London: Earthscan.
55. Smith, T.W. (1999). The delegates experience. In M. McCombs & A. Reynolds (Eds.), The Poll with a human face: The national issues convention experiment in political communication (pp. 39-58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
56. Southwell, B.G., & Torres, A. (2006). Connecting interpersonal and mass communication: Science news exposure, perceived ability to understand science, and conversation. Communication Monographs, 73, 334-350.
57. Southwell, B.G., & Yzer, M.C. (2007). The roles of interpersonal communication in mass media campaigns. Communication Yearbook, 31, 420-462.
58. Toumey, C. (2006). Science and democracy. Nature Nanotechnology, 1, 6-7.
59. Toumey, C., & Baird, D. (2006). Building nanoliteracy in the university and beyond. Nature Biotechnology, 24, 721-722.
60. Trumbo, C.W. (1998). Communication channels and risk information: A cost-utility model. Science Communication, 20, 190-203.
61. Tyler, T.R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 830-838.
62. Tyler, T.R., Boeckmann, R.J., Smith, H.J., & Huo, Y.J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: Westview.
63. U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). American factfinder. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov
64. van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of personality and social psychology, 80, 931-941.
65. van den Bos, K. (2005). What is responsible for the fair process effect? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 273-300). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
66. Xenos, M. (2008). New mediated deliberation: Blog and press coverage of the Alito nomination. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 485-503.