Measuring the Impact Values of Public Engagement in Medical Contexts

Science Communication

Volumn 34, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 752-775

  Watermeyer, Richard ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

public involvement; public perception of science; public relations; public understanding of science

Indexed keywords

EID: 84868124426     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547011432804     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Abelson J.,Forest P. G.,Eyles J.,Casebeer A.,Martin E.,Mackean G.Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: Results from a Canadian comparative study.Social Science & Medicine. 2007;64:2115-2128.
2. Bauer M. W.,Jensen P.The mobilization of scientists for public engagement.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20:3-11.
3. Bhattachary D.Science communication excellence: Survey of factors effecting science communication by scientists and engineers. London, England: Royal Society and Wellcome Trust; 2006:.
4. Bora A.,Hausendorf H.Participatory science governance revisited: Normative expectations versus empirical evidence.Science and Public Policy. 2006;33:478-488.
5. Burchell K.,Franklin S.,Holden K.Public culture as professional science: Final report of the SCOPE project (Scientists on public engagement: From communication to deliberation?). London, England: BIOS, London School of Economics and Political Science; 2009:.
6. Cantley M.In our own hands.Nature. 2005;437:193-194.
7. Collins H.,Evans R.The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience.Social Studies of Science. 2002;32:235-296.
8. Participation: The new tyranny. Cooke B.Kothari U., ed. London, England: Zed Books; 2001:.
9. Delli Carpini M. X.,Cook F. L.,Jacobs L. R.Public deliberation, discursive participation and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature.Annual Review of Political Science. 2004;7:315-344.
10. Department of Health. (2006). Best Research for Best Health: A New National Health Research Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4127127.
11. Dunwoody S.,Brossard D.,Dudo A.Socialization or rewards? Predicting American scientists' media interactions.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 2009;86:299-313.
12. Durant J.Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science.Science and Public Policy. 1999;26:313-319.
13. Durant J.,Evans G.,Thomas G.Public understanding of science in Britain: The role of medicine in the popular representation of science.Public Understanding of Science. 1992;1:161-182.
14. Durodié B.Limitations of public dialogue in science and the rise of the new "experts.".Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. 2003;6 (4): 82-92.
15. Epstein S.Impure science. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1996:.
16. Fiorino D. J.Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms.Science, Technology, & Human Values. 1990;15:226-43.
17. Fitzgerald K.,Peterman W.UK research universities and community engagement: Developing a practical framework for community partnerships. Bristol, England: University of Bristol; 2003:.
18. Gavelin K.,Wilson R.Doubleday R.Democratic technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). London, England: Involve; 2007:.
19. Gaventa J.,Cornwall A.From users and choosers to makers and shapers: Repositioning participation in social policy.IDS Bulletin. 2000;31 (4): 50-62.
20. Gibbons M.,Limoges C.,Nowotny H.,Schwartzman S.,Scott P.,Trow M.The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London, England: Sage; 1994:.
21. Gregory J.,Miller S.Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility. Cambridge, MA: Perseus; 1998:.
22. Hansen A.Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media. Holliman R.Whitelegg E.Scanlon E.Smidt S.Thomas J., ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2009:105-127.
23. Holdsworth C.HEIs and local communities: Forward and backward linkages. Exeter, England: University of Exeter; 2006:.
24. Holliman R.,Jensen E.Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media. Holliman R.Whitelegg E.Scanlon E.Smidt S.Thomas J., ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2009:35-52.
25. Science and technology. London, England: Her Majesty's Stationery Office; 2000:.
26. Irwin A.Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London, England: Routledge; 1995:.
27. Misunderstanding science: The public reconstruction of science and technology. Irwin A.Wynne B., ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1996:.
28. Jasanoff S.Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2005:.
29. Jasanoff S.Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2005:.
30. Lave J.,Wenger E.Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1991:.
31. Lambert H.,Rose H.Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science & Technology. Irwin Wynne, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996:.
32. Lezaun J.,Soneryd L.Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16:279-97.
33. Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision making. Maasen S.Weingart P., ed. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2006:.
34. Mouffe C.Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism.Social Research. 1999;66:745-758.
35. O'Donnell M.,Entwistle V.Consumer involvement in decisions about what health-related research is funded.Health Policy. 2004;70:281-290.
36. Pidgeon N.,Rogers-Hayden T.Public engagement on GM and nanotechnology.Science & Public Affairs. 2005;:14.
37. Poliakoff E.,Webb T. L.What factors predict scientists' intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?.Science Communication. 2007;29:242-263.
38. Research Councils UK. (2008). Public attitudes to science 2008: A survey. Retrieved from http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/scisoc/pas08.pdf.
39. 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;16:345-364.
40. Rose N.Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1999:.
41. Rowe G.,Frewer L. J.Evaluating public participation exercises: A research agenda.Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2004;29:512-556.
42. Rowe G.,Frewer L. J.A typology of public engagement mechanisms.Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2005;30:251-290.
43. Rowe G.,Gammack J.Promise and perils of electronic public engagement.Science and Public Policy. 2004;31:39-54.
44. Science communication: Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. London, England: Author; 2006:.
45. Sanders L. M.Against deliberation.Political Theory. 1997;25:347-376.
46. Shamos M.The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1995:.
47. SprainL. (2004). Sending signals from the ivory tower: Barriers to connecting academic research to the public. Retrieved from http://www.com.washington.edu/graduate/assets/publicservice/ps_sprain.pdf.
48. Stilgoe J.,Irwin A.,Jones K.The received wisdom: Opening up expert advice. London, England: Demos; 2006:.
49. StilgoeJ.SykesK. (2009). A little more conversation. In StilgoeJ. (Ed.), The road ahead: Public dialogue on science and technology. Didcot, England: Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre. Retrieved from http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/the-road-ahead/.
50. Stilgoe J.,Wilsdon J.Nano-ethics: The ethical and social implications of nanotechnology. Allhoff F.Lin P.Moor J.Weckert J., ed. New York, NY: Wiley Interscience; 2007:241-250.
51. Taverne D.The march of unreason: Science, democracy and the new fundamentalism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2005:.
52. Tucker A.Pre-emptive Democracy: Oligarchic Tendencies in Deliberative Democracy.Political Studies. 2008;56 (1): 127-147.
53. Watermeyer R.Challenges for university engagement in the UK: Towards a public academe?.Higher Education Quarterly. 2011;:.
54. The role of scientists in public debate. London, England: Author; 2000:.
55. Wenger E.Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1998:.
56. Wilsdon J.Science is moving upstream.Science & Public Affairs, December. 2004;:11.
57. Wilsdon J.,Willis R.See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London, England: Demos; 2004:.
58. Wilsdon J.,Wynne B.,Stilgoe J.The public value of science: Or how to ensure that science really matters. London, England: Demos; 2005:.
59. Wynne B.Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology. Lash S.Szerszynski B.Wynne B., ed. London, England: Sage; 1996:44-83.
60. Ziman J.Public understanding of science.Science, Technology, & Human Values. 1991;16:99-105.