Public participation in genomics research in the Netherlands: Validating a measurement scale

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 465-477

  Dijkstra, Anne M ^a   Gutteling, Jan M ^a   Swart, Jac A A ^b   Wieringa, Nicolien F ^b   van der Windt, Henny J ^b   Seydel, Erwin R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

biotechnology; genomics; measurement scale; public participation; science society relationship

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861826000     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662510381036     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Arnstein SR.A ladder of citizen participation.Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 1969;35 (4): 216-224.
2. Barnett J,Cooper H,Senior V.Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science.Risk Analysis. 2007;27:921-933.
3. Bauer MW,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 (1): 79-95.
4. Chess C,Purcell K.Public participation and the environment: Do we know what works?.Environmental Science and Technology. 1999;33 (16): 2685-2692.
5. De Jong JM,Gutteling JM,Koopman BR,Seydel ER.Genetische manipulatie: Maatschappelijke reacties en communicatieprocessen.Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap. 2000;28 (2): 165-180.
6. Dijkstra AMOf Publics and Science: How Publics Engage with Biotechnology and Genomics. Enschede: University of Twente; 2008:.
7. Earle TC,Cvetkovich GTSocial Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society. 1st edn. Westport, CT and London: Praeger; 1995:.
8. Einsiedel E,Thorne BCommunicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Friedman SMDunwoody SRogers CL, ed. London: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1999:43-57.
9. Felt UBetween Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology. Dierkes MVon Grote C, ed. London: Routledge; 2000:7-38.
10. Field ADiscovering Statistics Using SPSS. 2005) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 2nd edn.London: SAGE.London: SAGE; 2005:.
11. Fiorino DJ.Technical and democratic values in risk analysis.Risk Analysis. 1989;9 (3): 293-299.
12. Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy. Gaskell GBauer MW, ed. London: Science Museum; 2001:.
13. Genomics and Society: Legal, Ethical and Social Dimensions. Gaskell GBauer MW, ed. London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan; 2006:.
14. Gibbons M.Science's new social contract with society.Nature. 1999;402 (2 December): C81-C84.
15. Gottweis H.Gene therapy and the public: A matter of trust.Gene Therapy. 2002;9 (11): 667-669.
16. Griffin RJ,Dunwoody S,Neuwirth K.Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors.Environmental Research. 1999;80 (2 Pt II): S230-S245.
17. Grunig JE.Sierra Club study shows who become activists.Public Relations Review. 1989;15 (3): 3-24.
18. Gurabardhi ZA Journey into Risk Communication: Findings and Reflections on Organizations' Risk Communication with Stakeholders. Enschede: University of Twente; 2005:.
19. Hagendijk RP.The public understanding of science and public participation in regulated worlds.Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy. 2004;42 (1): 41-59.
20. Hagendijk R,Healey P,Horst M,Irwin A.Science, Technology and Governance in Europe: Challenges of Public Engagement. STAGE (HPSE-CT2001-50003) Final Report - February 2005. 2005;:.
21. Hansen JFraming the Public: Three Case Studies in Public Participation in the Governance of Agricultural Biotechnology. Florence: European University Institute; 2005:.
22. Hanssen L,Van Est R,Enzing CHet Participatieve Gen. Participatieve instrumenten in het omgaan met maatschappelijke vraagstukken over ontwikkelingen in voedingsgenomics. The Hague: NWO; 2002:.
23. Jacobs G,Braakman M,Houweling JOp eigen kracht naar gezond leven. Empowerment in de gezondheidsbevordering: concepten, werkwijzen en onderzoeksmethoden. Utrecht: University for Humanistics; 2005:.
24. Kerr A,Cunningham-Burley S,Amos A.The new genetics and health: Mobilizing lay expertise.Public Understanding of Science. 1998;7 (1): 41-60.
25. Leshner AI.Where science meets society.Science. 2005;307 (5711): 815.
26. Logan RA.Science mass communication: Its conceptual history.Science Communication. 2001;23 (2): 135-163.
27. Pidgeon N,Harthorn BH,Bryant K,Rogers-Hayden T.Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom.Nature Nanotechnology. 2009;4 (2): 95-98.
28. Pin RR,Gutteling JM,Kuttschreuter M.Determinants of reactions to gene technology: A generic approach.New Genetics and Society. 2009;28 (1): 51-65.
29. Poortinga W,Pidgeon NF.Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation.Risk Analysis. 2003;23 (5): 961-972.
30. Poortinga W,Pidgeon N,Bickerstaff K,Langford I,Niewöhner J,O'Riordan T, et alPublic Perceptions of Risk, Science and Governance: Main findings of a British Survey of Five Risk Cases. Norwich: Centre for Environmental Risk, University of East Anglia; 2003:.
31. Rogers-Hayden T,Pidgeon N.Moving engagement "upstream"? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering's inquiry.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16 (3): 345-364.
32. Rowe G,Frewer LJ.Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation.Science, Technology & Human Values. 2000;25 (1): 3-29.
33. Rowe G,Frewer LJ.Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda.Science Technology & Human Values. 2004;29 (4): 512-557.
34. Rowe G,Frewer LJ.A typology of public engagement mechanisms.Science Technology & Human Values. 2005;30 (2): 251-290.
35. Statistisch Jaarboek CBS. The Hague: CBS Statistics Netherlands; 2007:.
36. Sturgis P,Cooper H,Fife-Schaw C,Shepherd RBritish Social Attitudes: The 21st Report. Park ACurtice JThomson K, ed. London: Sage; 2004:119-147.
37. Sztompka PTrust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999:.
38. Te Molder H,Gutteling JGenes for Your Food - Food for Your Genes: Societal Issues and Dilemmas in Food Genomics. Van Est RHanssen LCrapels O, ed. The Hague: Rathenau Institute; 2003:117-131.
39. Ter Huurne EFJ,Griffin RJ,Gutteling JM.Risk information seeking among U.S. and Dutch residents: An application of the model of risk information seeking and processing.Science Communication. 2009;31:215-237.
40. Von Grote C,Dierkes MBetween Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology. Dierkes MVon Grote C, ed. Amsterdam: Harwood; 2000:341-361.
41. Weigold MF.Communicating science: A review of the literature.Science Communication. 2001;23 (2): 164-193.
42. Wilsdon J,Willis RSee-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos; 2004:.
43. Wynne B.Knowledges in context.Science, Technology & Human Values. 1991;16 (1): 111-121.
44. Zimmerman MAHandbook of Community Psychology. Rappaport JSeidman E, ed. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 2000:43-63.