Communicative Aspects of the Public-Science Relationship Explored: Results of Focus Group Discussions About Biotechnology and Genomics

Science Communication

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 363-391

  Dijkstra, Anne M ^a   Gutteling, Jan M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

communication process; focus group discussion; genomics; public participation; public science relationship

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861817039     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547011417894     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Allum N.,Sturgis P.,Tabourazi D.,Brunton-Smith I.Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;17:35-54.
2. Arnstein S. R.A ladder of citizen participation.Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 1969;35:216-224.
3. Bates B. R.,Lynch J. A.,Bevan J. L.,Condit C. M.Warranted concerns, warranted outlooks: A focus group study of public understandings of genetic research.Social Science & Medicine. 2005;60:331-344.
4. Bauer M. W.,Allum N.,Miller S.What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16:79-95.
5. Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy. 2002). Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy (1st ed.). London, England: Cambridge University Press in association with the Science Museum London.Bauer M. W.Gaskell G., ed. London, England: Cambridge University Press in association with the Science Museum London; 2002:.
6. Bloor M.,Frankland J.,Thomas M.,Robson K.Focus groups in social research. London, England: Sage; 2001:.
7. De Loor H.,Midden C. J. H.,Hisschemöller M.Publieksoordelen over nieuwe technologie. De bruikbaarheid van publieksonderzoek voor technologiebeleid. The Hague, Netherlands: NOTA; 1992:.
8. Dijkstra A. M.Of publics and science. How publics engage with biotechnology and genomics. University of Twente Enschede.; 2008:.
9. Dijkstra A. M.,Gutteling J. M.,Swart J. A. A.,Wieringa N. F.,Van der Windt H. J.,Seydel E. R.Public participation in genomics research in the Netherlands: Validating a measurement scale.Public Understanding of Science. 2010;:.
10. Downs C. C. W.,Adrian A. D.Assessing organizational communication: Strategic communication audits. Downs C. C. W.Adrian A. D., ed. New York, NY: Guilford; 2004:210-226.
11. Einsiedel E. F.,Goldenberg L.Dwarfing the social? Nanotechnology Lessons from the Biotechnology Front.Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 2004;24:28-33.
12. Einsiedel E.,Thorne B.Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Friedman S. M.Dunwoody S.Rogers C. L., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1999:43-57.
13. Einsiedel E.,Wambui Kamara M.Genomics & society: Legal, ethical & social dimensions. Gaskell G.Bauer M. W., ed. Sterling, VA: Earthscan; 2006:95-112.
14. Special Eurobarometer 224: Europeans, science and technology. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission; 2005:.
15. Felt U.Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology. Dierkes M.Grote C. V., ed. London, England: Routledge; 2000:7-38.
16. Gaskell G.,Bauer M. W.Biotechnology: 1996-2000. Gaskell G.Bauer M. W., ed. London, England: Science Museum; 2001:3-11.
17. Genomics & society: Legal, ethical & social dimensions. Gaskell G.Bauer M. W., ed. Sterling, VA: Earthscan; 2006:.
18. Gibbons M.Science's new social contract with society.Nature. 1999;402:C81-C84.
19. Gottweis H.Gene therapy and the public: A matter of trust.Gene Therapy. 2002;9:667-669.
20. HansenJ. (2005). Framing the public: Three case studies in public participation in the governance of agricultural biotechnology (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). European University Institute, Florence, Italy.
21. Hanssen L.,Dijkstra A.,Roeterdink W.,Stappers J. G.Wetenschapsvoorlichting: profetie of professie. Een confrontatie tussen communicatietheorie en voorlichtingspraktijk. Amsterdam: Foundation Weten; 2003:.
22. Hill A.,Michael M.The social management of genetic engineering. Wheale P.Schomberg R. V.Glasner P. E., ed. Aldershot, England: Ashgate; 1998:201-217.
23. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. 1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology (1st ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Irwin A.Wynne B., ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1996:.
24. Jacobs G.,Braakman M.,Houweling J.Op eigen kracht naar gezond leven. Empowerment in de gezondheidsbevordering: Concepten, werkwijzen en onderzoeksmethoden. Utrecht, Netherlands: University of Humanistic Studies; 2005:.
25. Kerr A.,Cunningham-Burley S.,Amos A.The new genetics and health: Mobilizing lay expertise.Public Understanding of Science. 1998;7:41-60.
26. Kidd P. S.,Parshall M. B.Getting the focus and the group: Enhancing analytical rigor in focus group research.Qualitative Health Research. 2000;10:293-308.
27. Knodel J.Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art. Morgan D. L., ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1993:35-50.
28. Logan R. A.Science mass communication: Its conceptual history.Science Communication. 2001;23:135-163.
29. MarrisC.WynneB.SimmonsP.WeldonS. (2001). Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe: Final report of the PABE research project funded by the Commission of European Communities. Retrieved from http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/projects/ieppp/pabe/docs/pabe_finalreport.doc.
30. Midden C.,Hamstra A.,Gutteling J.,Smink C.Biotechnology in the Public Sphere. Durant J.Bauer M. W.Gaskell G., ed. London: Science Museum; 1998:103-117.
31. Morgan D. L.Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 1997:.
32. Nisbet M. C.,Scheufele D. A.What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions.American Journal of Botany. 2009;96:1767-1778.
33. Pin R. R.,Gutteling J. M.,Kuttschreuter M.Determinants of reactions to gene technology: A generic approach.New Genetics and Society. 2009;28 (1): 51-65.
34. Powell M. C.,Colin M.Meaningful citizen engagement in science and technology: What would it really take?.Science Communication. 2008;30:126-136.
35. Powell M.,Lee Kleinman D.Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: The democratic virtues of the consensus conference model.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;17:329-348.
36. Qin W.,Brown J. L.Consumer opinions about genetically engineered salmon and information effect on opinions: A qualitative approach.Science Communication. 2006;28:243-272.
37. Rogers-Hayden T.,Pidgeon N.Developments in nanotechnology public engagement in the UK: "Upstream" towards sustainability?.Journal of Cleaner Production. 2008;16:1010-1013.
38. Rowan K. E.The technical and democratic approaches to risk situations: Their appeal, limitations, and rhetorical alternative.Argumentation. 1994;8:391-409.
39. Rowe G.,Frewer L. J.Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation.Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2000;25:3-29.
40. Sturgis P.,Allum N.Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes.Public Understanding of Science. 2004;13:55-74.
41. Ter Huurne E. F. J.,Gutteling J. M.How to trust? the importance of self-efficacy and social trust in public responses to industrial risks.Journal of Risk Research. 2009;12 (6): 809-824.
42. Wilsdon J.,Willis R.See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London, England: Demos; 2004:.
43. Wynne B.Handbook of science and technology studies. Jasanoff S.Markle G. E.Petersen J. C.Pinch T., ed. London, England: Sage; 1995:361-388.
44. Ziman J.Public understanding of science.Science, Technology, & Human Values. 1991;16:99-105.
45. Zimmerman M. A.Handbook of community psychology. Rappaport J.Seidman E., ed. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic; 2000:43-63.