Public engagement in research funding: A study of public capabilities and engagement methodology

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 225-239

  Rowe, Gene ^a   Rawsthorne, Dee ^b   Scarpello, Tracey ^c   Dainty, Jack R ^d  

^a NORWICH RESEARCH PARK   (United Kingdom)

^b JOHN INNES CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

^c NORFOLK AND NORWICH UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d INSTITUTE OF FOOD RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Food research; Public engagement; Research funding; Science in society

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; DIET; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; FOOD; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NUTRITIONAL STATUS; POLICY; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DECISION MAKING; DIET; FEMALE; FOOD; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH RESOURCES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NUTRITIONAL STATUS; PUBLIC OPINION; PUBLIC POLICY; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; RESOURCE ALLOCATION;

EID: 77749301490     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662508096780     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Abelson, J., Forest, P.G., Eyles, J., Casebeer, A., Martin, E. and Mackean, G. (2007) Examining the Role of Context in the Implementation of a Deliberative Public Participation Experiment: Results from a Canadian Comparative Study, Social Science and Medicine 64(10): 2115-28.
2. Andejeski, Y., Bisceglio, I.T., Dickersin, K., Johnson, J.E., Robinson, S.I., Smith, H.S., Visco, F.M. and Rich, I.M. (2002a) Quantitative Impact of Including Consumers in the Scientific Review of Breast Cancer Research Proposals, Journal of Women's Health and Gender-Based Medicine 11(4): 379-88.
3. Andejeski, Y., Breslau, E.S., Hart, E., Lythcott, N., Alexander, L., Rich, I., Bisceglio, I., Smith, H.S., Visco, F.M. and the US Army Medical Research and Material Command Fiscal Year 1995 Breast Cancer Research Program Integration Panel (2002 b) Benefits and Drawbacks of Including Consumer Reviewers in the Scientific Merit Review of Breast Cancer Research, Journal of Women's Health and Gender-Based Medicine 11(2): 119-36.
4. Anon. (2001) Science and the Public: A Review of Science Communication and Public Attitudes toward Science in Britain, Public Understanding of Science 10(3): 319-34.
5. Caron-Flinterman, J.F., Broerse, J.E.W. and Bunders, J.F.G. (2007) Patient Partnership in Decision-making on Biomedical Research: Changing the Network, Science, Technology, and Human Values 32(3): 339-68.
6. Chadwick, S. (2006) Client Driven Change: The Impact of Changes in Client Needs on the Research Industry, International Journal of Market Research 48(4): 391-414.
7. Corner, J., Wright, D., Hopkinson, J., Gunaratnam, Y., McDonald, J.W. and Foster, C. (2007) The Research Priorities of Patients Attending UK Cancer Treatment Centres: Findings from a Modified Nominal Group Study, British Journal of Cancer 96(6): 875-81.
8. Delli Carpini, M.X., Cook, F.L. and Jacobs, L.R. (2004) Public Deliberation, Discursive Participation, and Citizen Engagement: A Review of the Empirical Literature, Annual Review of Political Science 7: 315-44.
9. De Marchi, B. and Ravetz, J.R. (1999) Risk Management and Governance: A Post-normal Science Approach, Futures 31(7): 743-57.
10. Department of Health (2006) Best Research for Best Health: A New National Health Research Strategy. London: Department of Health.
11. Field, H. and Powell, P. (2001) Public Understanding of Science versus Public Understanding of Research, Public Understanding of Science 10(4): 421-6.
12. Fishkin, J.S. (1991) Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13. Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R. (1993) Science for the Post-normal Age, Futures 25(7): 739-55.
14. Griffiths, K.M., Jorm, A.F. and Christensen, H. (2004) Academic Consumer Researchers: A Bridge between Consumers and Researchers, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 38(4): 191-6.
15. HM Treasury, Department for Trade and Industry, and Department for Education and Skills (2004) Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014. Norwich: HMSO.
16. Involve (2006) Public Involvement on Commissioning Boards: Guidelines for Commissioners. Eastleigh: Involve.
17. Involve (2007) URL: www.invo.org.uk.
18. Irwin, A. (2001) Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences, Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 1-18.
19. James, J.E. (2002) 'Third-Party' Threats to Research Integrity in Public-Private Partnerships, Addiction 97(10): 1251-5.
20. Joss, S. and Bellucci, S. (2002) Participatory Technology Assessment in Europe: Introducing the EUROPTA Research Project, in S. Joss and S. Bellucci (eds) Participatory Technology Assessment: European Perspectives, pp. 3-11. Gateshead: Athenaeum Press.
21. Laird, F.N. (1989) The Decline of Deference: The Political Context of Risk Communication, Risk Analysis 9(4): 545-50.
22. Mendelberg, T. (2002) The Deliberative Citizen: Theory and Evidence, in M.X. Delli Carpini, L. Huddy and R. Shapiro (eds) Research in Micropolitics: Political Decisionmaking, Deliberation and Participation, pp. 151-93. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
23. Mori (2005) Diet and Health: Public Attitudes towards BBSRC-funded Research into Diet and Health. Swindon: BBSRC.
24. Nisker, J., Martin, D.K., Bluhm, R. and Daar, A.S. (2006) Theatre as a Public Engagement Tool for Health-policy Development, Health Policy 78(2-3): 258-71.
25. O'Donnell, M. and Entwistle, V. (2004) Consumer Involvement in Decisions about What Health-related Research is Funded, Health Policy 70(3): 281-90.
26. Oliver, S. (2006) Patient Involvement in Setting Research Agendas, European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 18(9): 935-8.
27. Pearson, G. (2001) The Participation of Scientists in Public Understanding of Science Activities: The Policy and Practice of the UK Research Councils, Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 121-37.
28. Rcuk (2007) URL: www.rcuk.ac.uk.
29. Resnik, D. (2001) Setting Biomedical Research Priorities: Justice, Science, and Public Participation, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11(2): 181-204.
30. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2000) Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation, Science, Technology, and Human Values 25(1): 3-29.
31. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2004) Evaluating Public Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda, Science, Technology, and Human Values 29(4): 512-56.
32. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2005) A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms, Science, Technology, and Human Values 30(2): 251-90.
33. Rowe, G. and Gammack, J.G. (2004) Promise and Perils of Electronic Public Engagement, Science and Public Policy 31(1): 39-54.
34. Rowe, G., Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N.F. (2006) A Comparison of Responses to Internet and Postal Surveys in a Public Engagement Context, Science Communication 27(3): 352-75.
35. Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N.F. (2008) Analysis of a Normative Framework for Evaluating Public Engagement Exercises: Reliability, Validity and Limitations, Public Understanding of Science 17(4): 419-41.
36. Ryfe, D.M. (2005) Does Deliberative Democracy Work?, Annual Review of Political Science 8: 49-71.
37. Schibeci, R., Harwood, J. and Dietrich, H. (2006) Community Involvement in Biotechnology Policy? The Australian Experience, Science Communication 27(3): 429-45.
38. Sprecker, K. (2002) How Involvement, Citation Style, and Funding Source Affect the Credibility of University Scientists, Science Communication 24(1): 72-97.
39. Sturgis, P. and Allum, N. (2004) Science in Society: Re-evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes, Public Understanding of Science 13(1): 55-74.
40. Sunstein, C.R. (2002) The Law of Group Polarization, Journal of Political Philosophy 10(2): 175-95.
41. Welfare, M.R., Colligan, J., Molyneux, S., Pearson, P. and Barton, J.R. (2006) The Identification of Topics for Research that are Important to People with Ulcerative Colitis, European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 18(9): 939-44.
42. Woolley, M. (1998) Populism and Scientific Decision Making, Science Communication 20(1): 52-5.
43. Wynne, B. (2006) Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science: Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?, Community Genetics 9(3): 211-20.