The rules of engagement: Power and interaction in dialogue events

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 65-79

  Davies, Sarah R ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

dialogue; discourse analysis; power; public engagement

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872343997     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662511399685     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Chilvers J.Deliberating competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice.Science, Technology & Human Values. 2008;33 (2): 155-185.
2. Collins HM,Evans R.The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience.Social Studies of Science. 2002;32 (2): 235-296.
3. Dana Centre (2008) URL (accessed October 2008): http://www.danacentre.org.uk.
4. Davies C,Wetherall M,Barnett ECitizens at the Centre: Deliberative Participation in Healthcare Decisions. Bristol: Policy Press; 2006:.
5. Davies S,McCallie E,Simonsson E,Lehr JL,Duensing S.Discussing dialogue: Perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18 (3): 338-353.
6. Davies SR.Doing dialogue: Genre and flexibility in public engagement with science.Science as Culture. 2009a;18 (4): 397-416.
7. Davies SRInvestigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media. Holliman RWhitelegg EScanlon ESmidt SThomas J, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009b:72-85.
8. Delgado A,Lein Kjolberg K,Wickson F.Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology.Public Understanding of Science. 2010;:.
9. Duncan S,Spicer SThe Engaging Researcher: Inspiring People to Engage with Your Research. Cambridge: Careers Research and Advisory Centre; 2010:.
10. Duneier M,Molotch H.Talking city trouble: Interactional vandalism, social inequality, and the "urban interaction problem".The American Journal of Sociology. 1999;104 (5): 1263-1295.
11. Evans R,Plows A.Listening without prejudice? Re-discovering the value of the disinterested citizen.Social Studies of Science. 2007;37 (6): 827-853.
12. Goven J.Processes of inclusion, cultures of calculation, structures of power: Scientific citizenship and the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification.Science, Technology & Human Values. 2006;31 (5): 565-598.
13. Grand APractising Science Communication in the Information Age: Theorising Professional Practices. Holliman RThomas JSmidt SScanlon EWhitelegg E, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009:209-226.
14. Gregory J,Lock SJ.The evolution of "public understanding of science": Public engagement as a tool of science policy in the UK.Sociology Compass. 2008;2 (4): 1252-1265.
15. Horlick-Jones T,Walls J,Rowe G,Pidgeon N,Poortinga W,Murdock G,O'Riordan TThe GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement. New York: Routledge; 2007:.
16. Hymes DFoundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 1974:.
17. Jackson R,Barbagallo F,Haste H.Strengths of public dialogue on science-related issues.Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. 2005;8 (3): 349-358.
18. Jefferson GConversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Roger DBull P, ed. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd; 1989:166-196.
19. Jones R.When it pays to ask the public.Nature Nanotechnology. 2008;3 (10): 578-579.
20. Kerr A,Cunningham-Burley S,Tutton R.Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue.Social Studies of Science. 2007;37 (3): 385-411.
21. Kurath M,Gisler P.Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18 (5): 559-573.
22. Kurian P,Wright J.Science, governance, and public participation: An analysis of decision making on genetic modification in Aotearoa/New Zealand.Public Understanding of Science. 2010;:.
23. Laurent B.Diverging convergences.Innovation. 2007;20 (4): 343-357.
24. Lehr JL,McCallie E,Davies SR,Caron BR,Gammon B,Duensing S.The role and value of dialogue events as sites of informal science learning.International Journal of Science Education. 2007;29 (12): 1-21.
25. Llewellyn N.Audience participation in political discourse: A study of public meetings.Sociology. 2005;39 (4): 697-716.
26. Lukes SPower: A Radical View. 2005) Power: A Radical View, 2nd edn.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005:.
27. McCallie E,Simonsson E,Gammon B,Nilsson K,Lehr JL,Davies SR.Learning to generate dialogue: Theory, practice, and evaluation.Museums and Social Issues. 2007;2 (2): 165-184.
28. Maynard DW.Interaction and asymmetry in clinical discourse.The American Journal of Sociology. 1991;97 (2): 448-495.
29. Molotch HL,Boden D.Talking social structure: Discourse, domination and the Watergate hearings.American Sociological Review. 1985;50 (3): 273-288.
30. Mouffe CDemocracy and Difference. Benhabib S, ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1996:245-256.
31. National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE) (2010) URL (accessed July 2010): http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk.
32. 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.
33. Rowe G,Frewer LJ.Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda.Science, Technology & Human Values. 2004;29 (4): 512-556.
34. Simonsson EDana Centre Audience Research Report 2005-2006. London: Visitor Research Group, Science Museum; 2006:.
35. Smallman M,Nieman ASmall Talk: Discussing Nanotechnologies. London: Think-Lab; 2006:.
36. Van Dijk T.Principles of critical discourse analysis.Discourse & Society. 1993;4 (2): 249-283.
37. Webler T,Tuler S.Unlocking the puzzle of public participation.Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 2002;22 (3): 179-189.
38. Wilsdon J,Willis RSee-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos; 2004:.
39. Wynne B.Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs.Science as Culture. 2001;10 (4): 445-481.
40. Wynne BScience and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement. Leach MScoones IWynne B, ed. London: Zed Books; 2005:66-82.
41. Wynne B.Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: Hitting the notes, but missing the music?.Community Genetics. 2006;9 (3): 211-220.
42. Yoong D.Interactional norms in the Australian police interrogation room.Discourse & Society. 2010;21 (6): 692-713.
43. Ziman J.Public understanding of science.Science, Technology & Human Values. 1991;16 (1): 99-105.