Virtual deliberation? prospects and challenges for integrating the internet in consensus conferences

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 367-384

  Delborne, Jason A ^a   Anderson, Ashley A ^a   Kleinman, Daniel Lee ^a   Colin, Mathilde ^a   Powell, Maria ^a  

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

Author keywords

Computer mediated communication; Consensus conference; Nanotechnology; Online deliberation; Public engagement

Indexed keywords

EID: 79956366904     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662509347138     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Bimber B.The Internet and Political Transformation: Populism, Community, and Accelerated Pluralism.Polity. 1998;31 (1): 133-60.
2. Cobb M. D.,Hamlett P.The First National Citizens' Technology Forum on Converging Technologies and Human Enhancement: Adapting the Danish Consensus Conference in the USA. Paper presented at "Public Communication of Science and Technology; 2008Malmo, Sweden; 2008.
3. Dahlgren P.The Internet and the Democratization of Civic Culture.Political Communication. 2000;17 (4): 335-40.
4. DietzT.SternP. C. (eds) (2008) Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. URL (consulted 27 July 2009): http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12434#toc.
5. Dryzek J. S.Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002:.
6. Fishkin J. S.The Voice of the People. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1995:.
7. FishkinJ. S. (2000) "Virtual Democratic Possibilities: Prospects for Internet Democracy," Paper presented at "Internet, Democracy and Public Goods," Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 6-10 November. URL (consulted 27 July 2009): http://cdd.stanford.edu/research/papers/2000/brazil_paper.pdf.
8. Guston D. H.Evaluating the First U.S. Consensus Conference: The Impact of the Citizens' Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy.Science, Technology, and Human Values. 1999;24 (4): 451-82.
9. Hamlett P. W.Adapting the Internet to Citizen Deliberations: Lessons Learned. Proceedings from the International Symposium on Technology and Society; 2002IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology; 2002. 213.
10. HamlettP. W. (2007) The National Citizens' Technology Forum Handbook. The Science, Technology & Society Program at North Carolina State University.
11. HamlettP. W. (n.d.) "Enhancing Public Participation in Participatory Public Policy Analysis Concerning Technology: A Report of Two Danish-Style Consensus Conferences," Unpublished manuscript. URL (consulted 27 July 2009): http://www.ifz.tugraz.at/index_en.php/filemanager/download/134/hamlett.pdf.
12. Haraway D.The Science Studies Reader. Biagioli M., ed. New York: Routledge; 1988] 1999:172-88.
13. Joss S.Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. Joss S.Durant J., ed. London: The Science Museum; 1995:89-108.
14. Joss S.Danish Consensus Conferences as a Model of Participatory Technology Assessment: An Impact Study of Consensus Conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish Public Debate.Science and Public Policy. 1998;25 (1): 2-22.
15. Kleinman D. L.,Powell M.,Grice J.,Adrian J.,Lobes C.A Toolkit for Democratizing Science and Technology Policy: The Practical Mechanics of Organizing a Consensus Conference.Bulletin of Science Technology Society. 2007;27 (2): 154-69.
16. Latour B.,Woolgar S.Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. 2nd ednPrinceton, NJ: Princeton University Press; [1979] 1986:.
17. Longstaff H.,Burgess M.Recruiting for Representation in Public Deliberation on the Ethics of Biobanks.Public Understanding of Science.
18. MansbridgeJ.Hartz-KarpJ.AmegualM.GastilJ. (2006) "Norms of Deliberation: An Inductive Study," Journal of Public Deliberation2(1): Article 7, URL (consulted 27 July 2009): http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol2/iss1/art7.
19. Merkle D. M.The Polls-Review: The National Issues Convention Deliberative Poll.Public Opinion Quarterly. 1996;60 (4): 588-619.
20. MinS.-J. (2007) "Online vs. Face-to-Face Deliberation: Effects on Civic Engagement," Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12(4): Article 11, URL (consulted 27 July 2009): http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/min.html.
21. Noveck B. S.Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal through the Internet. Shane P. M., ed. New York: Routledge; 2004:21-34.
22. Price V.,Cappella J. N.Online Deliberation and its Influence: The Electronic Dialogue Project in Campaign 2000.IT & Society. 2002;1 (1): 303-29.
23. PriceV.FeldmanL.FreresD.CappellaJ.ZhangW. (2006) "Informing Public Opinion about Health Care Reform through Online Deliberation," Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany. URL (consulted 27 July 2009): http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p92260_index.html.
24. Rowe G.,Frewer L. J.Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation.Science, Technology, and Human Values. 2000;25 (1): 3-29.
25. Rowe G.,Frewer L. J.Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda.Science, Technology, and Human Values. 2004;29 (4): 512-56.
26. Rowe G.,Frewer L. J.A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms.Science, Technology, and Human Values. 2005;30 (2): 251-90.
27. RoweG.GammackJ. G. (2004) "Promise and Perils of Electronic Public Engagement," Science and Public Policy31: 39-54, URL (consulted 27 July 2009): http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154304781780181.
28. Rowe G.,Marsh R.,Frewer L. J.Evaluation of a Deliberative Conference.Science, Technology, and Human Values. 2004;29 (1): 88-121.
29. Sclove R. E.Science, Technology, and Democracy. Kleinman D. L., ed. Albany: State University of New York Press; 2000:33-48.
30. Siegel J.,Dubrovsky V.,Kiesler S.,Mcguire T. W.Group Processes in Computer-Mediated Communication.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1986;37:157-87.
31. Sunstein C.Republic.Com. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2001:.