Imagining ordinary citizens? conceptualized and actual participants for deliberations on emerging technologies

Science as Culture

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 37-70

  Powell, Maria ^a   Colin, Mathilde ^b   Kleinman, Daniel Lee ^c   Delborne, Jason ^d   Anderson, Ashley ^b  

^a Independent Community based Participatory Scholar   (United States)

^b University of Wisconsin Madison ^*  (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^d Department of Geology and Geological Engineering   (United States)

Author keywords

Citizen engagement; Consensus conference; Deliberation; Human enhancement; Nanotechnology; Ordinary citizens

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952466399     PISSN: 09505431     EISSN: 14701189     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09505430903567741     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Beder, S. (1999) Public participation or public relations? in: B. Martin (Ed) Technology and Public Participation, pp. 169-192 (Wollongong, Australia: Science and Technology Studies, University of Wollongong).
2. Bord, R. J. and O'Connor, R. E. (1997) The gender gap in environmental attitudes: the case of perceived vulnerability to risk, Social Science Quarterly, 78(4), pp. 831-840.
3. Bullard, R. (1990) Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).
4. Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J. and Kershaw, T. (2002) A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups, Communication Theory, 12(4), pp. 398-422.
5. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P. and Barthe, Y. (2001) Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie technique (Paris: Seuil).
6. Carson, L. and Martin, B. (2002) Random selection of citizens for technological decision making, Science and Public Policy, 29(2), pp. 105-113.
7. Chambers, S. (2003) Deliberative democratic theory, Annual Review of Political Science, 6, pp. 307-326.
8. Cobb, M. and Macoubrie, J. (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6(4), pp. 395-405.
9. Delborne, J. A., Anderson, A. A., Kleinman, D. L., Colin, M. and Powell, M. (forthcoming) Virtual deliberation? Prospects and challenges for integrating the Internet in consensus conferences, Public Understanding of Science.
10. Dienel, P. C. (1997) Die Planungszelle. Eine Alternative zur Establishment-Demokratie [The Planning Cells. An Alternative to Establishment-Democracy], 4th ed. with Status Report '97 (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag).
11. Einsiedel, E. F., Jelsøe, E. and Breck, T. (2001) Publics at the technology table: the consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia, Public Understanding of Science, 10, pp. 83-98.
12. ETC Group (Erosion, Technology, and Concentration Group) (2003) The Big Down: From Genomes to Atoms. Technologies Converging at the Nano-scale (Canada). Available at: http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/171/01/thebigdown.pdf
13. Evans, R. and Plows, A. (2007) Listening without prejudice?: re-discovering the value of the disinterested citizen, Social Studies of Science, 37(6), pp. 827-853.
14. Finucane, M. (2002) Mad cows, mad corn and mad communities: the role of socio-cultural factors in the perceived risk of genetically-modified food, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 61, pp. 31-37.
15. Fischer, F. (2000) Citizens, Experts and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge (Durham, NC: Duke University Press).
16. Gavelin, K., Wilson, R. and Doubleday, R. (2007) Democratic Technologies? Final Report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG) (London: Involve). Available at: http://involve.brilliantukhosting.com/assets/Uploads/Democratic-Technologies.pdf
17. Grundahl, J. (1995) The Danish consensus conference model, in: S. Joss and J. Durant (Eds) Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe, pp. 31-40 (London: Science Museum).
18. Gustafson, P. E. (1998) Gender differences in risk perception: theoretical and methodological perspectives, Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 18(6), pp. 805-811.
19. Gutmann, A. and Thompson, D. (1996) Democracy and Disagreement (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, Belknap Press).
20. Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (Boston, MA: Beacon Press).
21. Hamlett, P. W. (2007) The National Citizens' Technology Forum Handbook, 41 pp. (unpublished document).
22. Hamlett, P. W. and Cobb, M. D. (2006) Potential solutions to public deliberation problems: structured deliberations and polarization cascades, The Policy Studies Journal, 34(4), pp. 629-648.
23. Hamlett, P. W., Cobb, M. D. and Ndoh, C. (2008a) All Hands Meeting, April 23-25, The Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
24. Hamlett, P. W., Guston, D. H. and Cobb, M. D. (2008b) National Citizens' Technology Forum: Nanotechnologies and Human Enhancement, Report #R08-0002 (The Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University). Available at: http://cns.asu.edu/files/NCTFSummaryReportFinalFormat08.pdf
25. Haraway, D. (1988) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of the partial perspective, Feminist Studies, 14(30), pp. 575-599.
26. Harding, S. (1998) Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press).
27. Harvey, M. (2009) Drama, talk and emotion: omitted aspects of public participation, Science, Technology & Human Values, 34(2), pp. 139-161.
28. Hendriks, C. M., Dryzek, J. S. and Hunold, C. (2007) Turning up the heat: partisanship in deliberative innovation, Political Studies, 55(2), pp. 362-383.
29. Invernizzi, N. and Foladori, G. (2005) Nanotechnology and the developing world: will nanotechnology overcome poverty or widen disparities? Nanotechnology Law and Business, 2(3), pp. 294-303.
30. Irwin, A. (2004) Rather than Representing Citizens as Risk-Averse, We should be Engaging More with What People Want from Technical Change, Spiked online debate. Available at: http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA375.htm
31. Irwin, A. (2006) The politics of talk: coming to terms with the 'new' scientific governance, Social Studies of Science, 36(2), pp. 299-320.
32. Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).
33. Kenney, D. S. (2000) Arguing about Consensus: Examining the Case against Western Watershed Initiatives and Other Collaborative Groups Active in Natural Resources Management, Working Paper (Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law).
34. Kleinman, D. L. (Ed) (2000) Science, Technology, and Democracy (Albany, NY: SUNY Press).
35. Kleinman, D. L., Delborne, J. and Anderson, A. (forthcoming) Engaging citizens: the high cost of citizen participation in high technology, Public Understanding of Science.
36. Kotchetkova, I., Evans, R. and Langer, S. (2008) Articulating contextualized knowledge: focus groups and/as public participation? Science as Culture, 17(1), pp. 71-84.
37. Kuran, T. and Sunstein, C. R. (1999) Availability cascades and risk regulation, Stanford Law Review, 51(1), pp. 683-768.
38. Kyle, R. and Dodds, S. (2009) Avoiding empty rhetoric: engaging publics in debates about nanotechnologies, Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, pp. 81-96.
39. Learmonth, M., Martin, G. and Warwick, P. (2009) Ordinary and effective: the catch-22 in managing the public voice in health care, Health Expectations, 12, pp. 106-115.
40. Lee, C. J., Scheufele, D. A. and Lewenstein, B. V. (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology, Science Communication, 27(2), pp. 240-267.
41. Lezaun, J. and Soneryd, L. (2007) Consulting citizens: technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics, Public Understanding of Science, 16(3), pp. 279-297.
42. Lyons, K. and Whelan, J. (forthcoming) Community engagement to facilitate, legitimize and accelerate the advancement of nanotechnologies in Australia, NanoEthics.
43. Mansbridge, J. (1992) A deliberative theory of interest representation, in: M. P. Petracca (Ed) The Politics of Interests, pp. 32-57 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).
44. Maranta, A., Guggenheim, J., Gisler, P. and Pohl, C. (2003) The reality of experts and the imagined lay person, Acta Sociologica, 46, pp. 150-165.
45. Martin, G. P. (2008) 'Ordinary people only': knowledge, representativeness, and the publics of public participation in healthcare, Sociology of Health and Illness, 30(1), pp. 35-54.
46. Masuda, J. R., McGee, T. K. and Garvin, T. D. (2008) Power, knowledge, and public engagement: constructing 'citizenship' in Alberta's industrial heartland, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 10(4), pp. 359-380.
47. Mendelberg, T. (2002) The deliberative citizen: theory and evidence, in: M. Delli Carpini, L. Huddy and R. Y. Shapiro (Eds) Political Decision Making, Deliberation and Participation, pp. 151-193 (New York: Elsevier Press).
48. Owens, S. (2000) 'Engaging the public': information and deliberation in environmental policy, Environment and Planning A, 32, pp. 1141-1148.
49. Parkinson, J. (2006) Deliberation in the Real World: Problems of Legitimacy in Deliberative Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
50. Petersen, A., Anderson, A., Wilkinson, C. and Stuart, A. (2007) Nanotechnology, risk and society, Health, Risk and Society, 9, pp. 117-124.
51. Powell, M. and Colin, M. (2008) Meaningful citizen engagement in science and technology: what would it really take? Science Communication, 30(1), pp. 126-136.
52. Powell, M. and Colin, M. (2009) Participatory paradoxes: facilitating citizen engagement in nanotechnologies from the top-down, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 29(4), pp. 325-342.
53. Powell, M., Dunwoody, S., Griffin, R. and Neuwirth, K. (2007) Exploring lay uncertainty about an environmental health risk, Public Understanding of Science, 16, pp. 323-343.
54. Powell, M. and Kleinman, D. L. (2008) Building citizen capacities for participation in technoscientific decisionmaking: the democratic virtues of the consensus conference model, Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), pp. 329-348.
55. Powell, M., Powell, J., Moua, K., Olivas, B., Schmitz, J. and Xiong, L. (2010) Invisible people, invisible risks: how scientific assessments of environmental health risks overlook minorities-and how community participatory science can make them visible, in: B. Cohen and G. Ottinger (Eds) Engineers, Scientists, and Environmental Justice: Transforming Expert Cultures through Grassroots Engagement (Boston, MA: MIT Press, in review).
56. Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster).
57. Radstake, M., van den Heuvel-Vromans, E., Jeucken, N., Dortmans, K. and Nelis, A. (2009) Societal dialogue needs more than public engagement, EMBO Reports, 10(4), pp. 313-317.
58. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. J. (2005) A typology of public-engagement mechanisms, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 30(2), pp. 251-290.
59. Salamanca-Buentello, F., Persad, D. L., Court, E. B., Martin, D. K., Daar, A. S. et al. (2005) Nanotechnology and the developing world, PLoS Medicine, 2(5), pp. 383-386.
60. Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Shih, T., Dalrymple, K. E. and Ho, S. S. (2009) Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States, Nature Nanotechnology, 4, pp. 91-94.
61. Scheufele, D. A. and Lewenstein, B. V. (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, pp. 659-667.
62. Seifert, F. (2006) Local steps in an international career: a Danish-style consensus conference in Austria, Public Understanding of Science, 15, pp. 73-88.
63. Sunstein, C. R. (2000) Deliberative trouble? Why groups go to extremes, The Yale Law Journal, 110, pp. 71-119.
64. Sunstein, C. R. (2002) Risk and Reason: Safety, Law, and the Environment (New York: Cambridge University Press).
65. Sunstein, C. R. (2003) The law of group polarization, in: J. S. Fishkin and P. Laslett (Eds) Debating Deliberative Democracy, pp. 80-101 (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing).
66. Sunstein, C. R. (2005) Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
67. United States 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (2003) Public Law 108-153. Available at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/sd108-11/pdf/pl108-153.pdf (last accessed 16 October 2009).
68. Williams, M. S. (2000) The uneasy alliance of group representation and deliberative democracy, in: W. Kymlicka and W. Norman (Eds) Citizenship in Diverse Societies, pp. 124-152 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
69. Wynne, B. (2008) Elephants in the rooms where publics encounter 'science'? A response to Darrin Durant, Accounting for expertise: Wynne and the autonomy of the lay public, Public Understanding of Science, 17, pp. 21-33.
70. Young, I. M. (2001) Activist challenges to deliberative democracy, Political Theory, 29(5), pp. 670-690.