Exploring public discourses about emerging technologies through statistical clustering of open-ended survey questions

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 22, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 850-868

  Stoneman, Paul ^a   Sturgis, Patrick ^a   Allum, Nick ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

biotechnology; discourses of science; public understanding of science

Indexed keywords

EID: 84884384842     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662512441569     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Althaus SInternational Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 2008) Polls, opinion. In: DarityWA (ed.) International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2nd edn, Vol. 6. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 355-358.Darity WA, ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA; 2008:355-358.
2. Asher HB.Some consequences of measurement error in survey data.American Journal of Political Science. 1974;18 (2): 469-485.
3. Bara J,Weale A,Bicquelet A.Analysing parliamentary debate with computer assistance.Swiss Political Science Review. 2007;13 (4): 577-605.
4. Bennett WLThe Political Mind and the Political Environment: An Investigation of Public Opinion and Political Consciousness. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; 1975:.
5. Bishop GD,Hamilton DL,McConahay JB.Attitudes and nonattitudes in the belief systems of mass publics.The Journal of Social Psychology. 1980;110 (1): 53-64.
6. Bishop GFThe Illusion of Public Opinion: Fact and Artifact in American Public Opinion Polls. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers; 2004:.
7. Blumer HSymbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1969:127-139.
8. Brier A,Hopp B.Computer assisted text analysis in the social sciences.Quality and Quantity. 2010;45:103-128.
9. Bryman A.Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done?.Qualitative Research. 2006;6 (1): 97-113.
10. Bryman A.Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research.Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2007;1:1-18.
11. Burgess J,Stirling A,Clark J,Davies G,Eames M,Mayer S,Staley K,Williamson S.Deliberative mapping: Developing an analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16 (3): 299-322.
12. Butt S,Clery E,Abeywardana V,Phillips MWellcome Trust Monitor 1. London: Wellcome Trust; 2009:.
13. Converse JSurvey Research in the United States: Roots and Emergence 1890-1960. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1987:.
14. Converse PIdeology and Discontent. Apter D, ed. New York: Free Press; 1964:206-261.
15. Dahl RADemocracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1989:.
16. Fielding N,Cisneros-Puebla CA.CAQDAS-GIS convergence toward a new integrated mixed method research practice?.Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2009;3 (4): 349-370.
17. Fishkin J,Luskin R.Experimenting with a democratic ideal: Deliberative polling and public opinion.Acta Politica. 2005;40 (3): 284-298.
18. Frewer LJ,Salter BRisk Management and Public Trust. Siegrist M, ed. London: Earthscan; 2007:143-159.
19. Friedrich R.In defense of multiplicative terms in multiple regression equations.American Journal of Political Science. 1982;26:797-833.
20. Greenacre MCorrespondence Analysis in Practice. 2007) Correspondence Analysis in Practice, 2nd edn.London: Chapman & Hall/CRC.London: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2007:.
21. Greene JC,Caracelli VJ,Graham WF.Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 1989;11:255-274.
22. Greer JG.What do open-ended questions measure?.Public Opinion Quarterly. 1988;52:365-371.
23. Groves RM,Fowler FJ,Couper MP,Lepkowski JM,Singer E,Tourarangeau RSurvey Methodology. 2009) Survey Methodology, 2nd edn.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley; 2009:.
24. Hawthorne M.The computer in literary analysis: Using TACT with students.Computers and the Humanities. 1994;28:19-27.
25. Herbst S.Surveys in the public sphere: Applying Bourdieu's critique of opinion polls.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 1992;4:220-229.
26. Holliman R.Reception analyses of science news: Evaluating focus groups as a method.Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale. 2005;76-77:254-264.
27. Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Irwin AWynne B, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996:.
28. Iyengar S.The problem of response stability: Some correlates and consequences.American Journal of Political Science. 1973;17 (4): 797-808.
29. Jones D.What does the British public think about human-animal hybrid embryos?.Journal of Medical Ethics. 2009;35:168-170.
30. Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. Joss SDurant J, ed. London: Science Museum; 1995:.
31. Kaufman L,Rousseeuw PJFinding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis. Chichester: Wiley; 2005:.
32. Kish L.Studies of interviewer variance for attitudinal variables.Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1962;57:92-115.
33. Kleinman DLScience, Technology, and Democracy. Kleinman DL, ed. Albany, NY: SUNY Press; 2000:139-166.
34. Kline RBPrinciples and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 2010) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd edn.New York: Guilford Press.New York: Guilford Press; 2010:.
35. KotchetkovaIEvansRLangerS (2007) Public opinion as questions not answers: How citizens evaluate the therapeutic potential of stem cell research in the context of T1 diabetes. NCRM Working Paper Series 7/07. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods.
36. Laver M,Garry J.Estimating policy positions from political texts. Paper presented to the ECPR sessions; 1999Mannheim; 1999.
37. Lebart L,Salem A,Berry LExploring Textual Data. Boston: Kluwer; 1998:.
38. Lowe W,Benoit K,Mikhaylov S,Laver M.Scaling policy positions from coded units of political texts.Legislative Studies Quarterly. 2011;36 (1): 123-155.
39. Mayer S,Stirling A.GM crops: Good or bad? Those who choose the questions determine the answers.European Molecular Biology Organisation Reports. 2004;5 (11): 1021-1024.
40. Middendorf G,Busch L.Inquiry for the public good: Democratic participation in agricultural research.Agriculture and Human Values. 1997;14:45-57.
41. Miller S.Public understanding of science at the crossroads.Public Understanding of Science. 2001;10:115-120.
42. Moscovici S.Attitudes and opinions.Annual Review of Psychology. 1963;14:231-260.
43. Murtagh FCorrespondence Analysis and Data Coding with Java and R. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall; 2005:.
44. NiglasK (2004) The combined use of qualitative and quantitative methods in educational research. Tallinn Pedagogical University Dissertation on Social Sciences, Tallinn, Estonia.
45. Nisbet M,Goidel RK.Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16:421-440.
46. Pidgeon NF,Poortinga W,Rowe G,Horlick-Jones T,Walls J,O'Riordan T.Using surveys in public participation processes for risk decision-making: The case of the 2003 British GM Nation? public debate.Risk Analysis. 2005;25 (2): 467-480.
47. Reinert MMots chiffrés et déchiffrés: Mélanges offerts à Étienne Brunet. Mellet SVuillaume M, ed. Genève: SLATKINE; 1998:289-303.
48. Rogers-Hayden T,Pidgeon N.Reflecting upon the UK's citizens' jury on nanotechnologies: NanoJury UK.Nanotechnology Law and Business. 2006;3 (2): 167-178.
49. Rowe G,Frewer LJ.Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation.Science, Technology and Human Values. 2000;25 (1): 3-29.
50. Ruckelshaus WJ.Overview of the problem: Communicating about risk. Risk Communication: Proceedings of the National Conference on Risk Communication; 1986Washington DC; 1986.
51. Salter B,Jones M.Human genetic technologies, European governance and the politics of bioethics.Nature Reviews Genetics. 2002;3 (10): 808-814.
52. Salter B,Jones M.Change in the policy community of human genetics: A pragmatic approach to open governance.Policy and Politics. 2006;34 (2): 347-366.
53. Sandelowski M,Voils C,Knafl G.On quantitizing.Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2009;3 (3): 208-222.
54. Schonhardt-Bailey C.Measuring ideas more effectively: An analysis of Bush and Kerry's national security speeches.PS: Political Science & Politics. 2005;38 (4): 701-711.
55. Schuman H,Presser SQuestions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments in Question Form, Wording, and Context. New York: Academic Press; 1981:.
56. Soroka S,Wlezien C.Political institutions and the opinion-policy link. Paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions of Workshops; 2011St. Gallen, Switzerland; 2011.
57. StonemanPSturgisPAllumN (2011) Exploring public discourses about emerging biotechnologies through automated coding of open-ended survey questions. Wellcome Trust Project Report, NCRM working paper. Available at (accessed 6 March 2012): http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2039/.
58. Sturgis P.Attitudes and measurement error revisited: Reply to Johnson and Pattie.British Journal of Political Science. 2002;32:691-698.
59. Sturgis P,Allum N.Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes.Public Understanding of Science. 2004;13:55-74.
60. Sturgis P and Allum N (2006) A Literature Review of Research Conducted on Public Interest, Knowledge and Attitudes to Biomedical Science. London: The Wellcome Trust.
61. Sturgis P,Smith P.Assessing the validity of generalized trust questions: What kind of trust are we measuring?.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2010;22 (1): 74-92.
62. Sturgis P,Cooper H,Fife-Schaw C,Shepherd RBritish Social Attitudes: The 21st Report. Park ACurtice JThomson KBromley CPhillips M, ed. London: SAGE; 2004:119-145.
63. Wlezien C.On the salience of political issues: The problem with "most important problem".Electoral Studies. 2005;24 (4): 555-579.