In search of dialogue: Staging science communication in consensus conferences

Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 259-274

  Horst, Maja ^a  

^a Department of International Economics and Management   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Communication models; consensus conferences; controversies; democracy; expertise; negotiation

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053596183     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7_15     Document Type: Chapter

References (45)

1. Agersnap, T., Jakobsen, G. & Kempinski, J. (1984). Konsensuskonferencer i Danmark. Copenhagen: Dansk Sygehus Institut.
2. Andersen, I.-E. & Jæger, B. (1999). Danish participatory models. Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: towards more democratic decision-making. Science and Public Policy, 5, 331-340.
3. Barns, I., Schibeci, R., Davison, A. & Shaw, R. (2000). What do you think about genetic medicine? Facilitating sociable public discourse on developments in the new genetics. Science, Technology and Human Values, 3, 283-308.
4. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society. London: Sage Publications.
5. Blok, A. (2007). Experts on public trial: On democratizing expertise through a Danish consensus conference. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 163-182.
6. Durant, J. (1993). What is scientific literacy? In J. Durant & J. Gregory (Eds.), Science and culture in Europe. London: Science Museum, 129-137.
7. Durant, J. (1999). Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Science and Public Policy, 5, 313-319.
8. Einsiedel, E. F. & Eastlick, D. L. (2000). Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy. Science Communication, 4, 323-343.
9. Einsiedel, E. F., Jelsøe, E. & Breck, T. (2001). Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 83-98.
10. Franklin, J. (1998). The politics of risk society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
11. Giddens, A. (1990). Modernitetens konsekvenser. Cambridge: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
12. Goven, J. (2003). Deploying the consensus conference in New Zealand: Democracy and de-problematization. Public Understanding of Science, 12(4), 423-440.
13. Grundahl, J. (1995). The Danish consensus conference model. In S. Joss. & J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum, 31-40.
14. Guston, D. H. (1999). Evaluating the first US consensus conference: The impact of the Citizens' Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy. Science, Technology and Human Values, 4, 451-482.
15. Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere-An inquiry into a category of bourgois society. Cambridge: MIT Press.
16. Hagendijk, R., Healey, P., Horst, M. & Irwin, A. (2005). STAGE: Science, technology and governance in Europe: Challenges of public engagement. HPSE-CT2001-50003, European Commission. Available from www.stage-research.net/ STAGE/content/reports.html
17. Horst, M., Irwin, A., Healey, P. & Hagendijk, R. (2007). European scientific governance in a global context: Resonances, implications and reflections. IDS Bulletin, 5, 6-20.
18. Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science. A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge.
19. Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with 'new' scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 2, 299-322.
20. Irwin, A. & Michael, M. (2003). Science, social theory and public knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
21. Irwin, A. & Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstanding science? Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge
22. Jensen, C. B. (2005). Citizen projects and consensus-building at the Danish Board of Technology-On experiments in democracy. Acta Sociologica, 3, 221-235.
23. Joss, S. (1999). Introduction. Public participation in science and technology policy and decision-making-Ephemeral phenomenon or lasting change? Science and Public Policy, 5, 290-293.
24. Joss, S. (2002). Toward the public sphere-Reflections on the development of participatory technology assessment. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 3, 220-231.
25. Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S. & Amos, A. (1998). Drawing the line: An analysis of lay people's discussions about the new genetics. Public Understanding of Science, 7(2), 113-133.
26. Klüwer, L. (1995). Consensus conferences at the Danish Board of Technology. In S. Joss & J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum, 41-49.
27. Lin, C.-F., Chiang, H.-H., Chung, C.-C., Lin, T.-L., Yin, T. J. C. & Yang, C.-M. (2007). Using a citizen consensus conference to revise the code of ethics for nurses in Taiwan. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 39(1), 95-101.
28. Locke, S. (1999). Golem science and the public understanding of science: From deficit to dilemma. Public Understanding of Science, 8, 75-92.
29. Logan, R. A. (2001). Science mass communication. Science Communication, 2, 135-163.
30. McQuail, D. (1994). Mass communication theory. London: Sage Publications.
31. Michael, M. (1998). Between citizen and consumer: Multiplying the meanings of the 'public understandings of science'. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 313-327.
32. Michael, M. (2001). Technoscientific bespoking: Animals, publics and the new genetics. New Genetics and Society, 3, 205-224.
33. Michael, M. (2002). Comprehension, apprehension, prehension: Heterogeneity and the public understanding of science. Science, Technology and Human Values, 3, 357-378.
34. Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 115-120.
35. Nielsen, A. P., Lassen, J. & Sandøe, P. (2007). Democracy at its best? The consensus conference in a cross-national perspective. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(1), 13-35.
36. Nishizawa, M. (2005). Citizen deliberations on science and technology and their social environments: Case study on the Japanese consensus conference on GM crops. Science and Public Policy, 6, 479-489.
37. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science-Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
38. Purdue, D. (1999). Experiments in the governance of biotechnology: A case study of the UK National Consensus Conference. New Genetics and Society, 1, 79-99.
39. Schwarz, M. (1993). The technological culture: Challenges for technology assessment and policy. Science and Public Policy, 6, 381-388.
40. Seifert, F. (2006). Local steps in an international career: A Danish-style consensus conference in Austria. Public Understanding of Science, 15(1), 73-88.
41. Skorupinski, B., Baranzke, H., Ingensiep, H. W. & Meinhardt, M. (2007). Consensus conferences-A case study: PubliForum in Switzerland with special respect to the role of lay persons and ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(1), 37-52.
42. Wakamatsu, Y. (1999). A citizens' conference on gene therapy in Japan: a feasibility study of the consensus conference method in Japan. AI and Society, 13(1-2), 22-43.
43. Weale, A. (2001). Deliberative democracy. Science advice, democratic responsiveness and public policy. Science and Public Policy, 6, 413-421.
44. Webler, T. & Tuler, S. (2002). Unlocking the puzzle of public participation. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 3, 179-189.
45. Weigold, M. F. (2001). Communicating science. Science Communication, 2, 164-193.