Information beyond the forum: Motivations, strategies, and impacts of citizen participants seeking information during a consensus conference

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 22, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 955-970

  Anderson, Ashley A ^a   Delborne, Jason ^b   Kleinman, Daniel Lee ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering   (United States)

Author keywords

consensus conference; deliberation; information seeking; Internet; mass media; nanotechnology; public engagement

Indexed keywords

EID: 84886041222     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662512447173     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Bohman JPublic Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1996:.
2. Bubela T,Nisbet MC,Borchelt R,Brunger F,Critchley C,Einsiedel E, et al.Science communication reconsidered.Nature Biotechnology. 2009;27 (6): 514-518.
3. CompN (2007) Nanotech watcher Andrew Maynard assesses its risks. The Isthmus. Available at: http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=7792 (accessed May 19, 2011).
4. CompN (2008) Comp time with Terese Berceau: State rep takes lead on efforts to track nanoparticles. The Isthmus. Available at: http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=18942 (accessed May 19, 2011).
5. Delborne JA,Anderson AA,Kleinman DL,Colin M,Powell M.Virtual deliberation? Prospects and challenges for integrating the Internet in consensus conferences.Public Understanding of Science; 2011; 20(3): 367-384
6. Dudo A,Dunwoody S,Scheufele DA.The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in media coverage of nanotechnology.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 2011;88 (1): 55-75.
7. Einsiedel EF,Eastlick DL.Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy: A communications perspective.; 2000; 2000. 323.
8. GM Nation? The Findings of the Public Debate. London, UK: Department of Trade and Industry; 2003:.
9. 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): S230-S245.
10. Grundahl J.The Danish consensus conference model. Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe; 1995London, UK: Science Museum with the support of the European Commission Directorate General XII; 1995. 31.
11. Habermas JBetween Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Trans. Rehg W. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1996:.
12. Hamstra A.The role of the public in instruments of constructive technology assessment. Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe; 1995London, UK: Science Museum with the support of the European Commission Directorate General XII; 1995. 53.
13. Horlick-Jones T,Rowe G,Walls J.Citizen engagement processes as information systems: The role of knowledge and the concept of translation quality.Public Understanding of Science. 2007a;16 (3): 259-278.
14. Horlick-Jones T,Walls J,Kitzinger J.Bricolage in action: Learning about, making sense of, and discussing, issues about genetically modified crops and food.Health, Risk & Society. 2007b;9 (1): 83-103.
15. Horlick-Jones T,Prades A,Espluga J.Investigating the degree of "stigma" associated with nuclear energy technologies: A cross-cultural examination of the case of fusion power.Public Understanding of Science. 2010;:.
16. Kleinman DL,Powell M,Grice J,Adrian J,Lobes C.A toolkit for democratizing science and technology policy: The practical mechanics of organizing a consensus conference.Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 2007;27 (2): 154-169.
17. Kleinman DL,Delborne JA,Anderson AA.Engaging citizens: The high cost of citizen participation in high technology.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20 (2): 221-240.
18. Klüver L.Consensus conferences at the Danish Board of Technology. Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe; 1995London, UK: Science Museum with the support of the European Commission Directorate General XII; 1995. 41.
19. Lee G.A consensus conference from the point of view of a lay-panel member. Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe; 1995London, UK: Science Museum with the support of the European Commission Directorate General XII; 1995. 81-86.
20. Lezaun J,Soneryd L.Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16 (3): 279-297.
21. McComas KA,Lundell HC,Trumbo CW,Besley JC.Public meetings about local cancer clusters: Exploring the relative influence of official versus symbolic risk messages on attendees' post-meeting concern.Journal of Risk Research. 2010;13 (6): 753-770.
22. McGuire WThe Uses of Mass Communication: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research. Blumler JKatz E, ed. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE; 1974:167-198.
23. Myers GMatters of Opinion: Talking about Public Issues. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2004:.
24. Human enhancement. identity & biology: NCTF background materials; 2007:.
25. Pew Research Center (2008) Key news audiences now blend online and traditional sources: Audience segments in a changing news environment. Available at: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/928/key-news-audiences-now-blend-online-and-traditional-sources (accessed May 25, 2011).
26. Polletta F,Chen PCB,Anderson C.Is information good for deliberation? Link-posting in an online forum.Journal of Public Deliberation. 2009;5 (1):.
27. Powell M,Kleinman DL.Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: The democratic virtues of the consensus conference model.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;17 (3): 329-348.
28. Powell M,Colin M,Kleinman DL,Delborne J,Anderson A.Imagining ordinary citizens? Conceptualized and actual participants for deliberations on emerging technologies.Science as Culture. 2011a;20 (1): 37-70.
29. Powell M,Delborne J,Colin M.Beyond engagement exercises: Exploring the U.S. National Citizens' Technology Forum from the bottom-up.Journal of Public Deliberation. 2011b;7 (1):.
30. Prades López A,Horlick-Jones T,Oltra C,Solá R.Lay perceptions of nuclear fusion: Multiple modes of understanding.Science & Public Policy (SPP). 2008;35 (2): 95-105.
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. Ryfe DM.Narrative and deliberation in small groups.Journal of Applied Communication Research. 2006;34 (1): 72-93.
33. Scheufele DA,Lewenstein BV.The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2005;7 (6): 659-667.
34. Sclove R.Town meetings on nanotechnology: Consensus conferences as democratic participation. Science, Technology and Democracy; 2000Albany, NY: State University of New York Press; 2000. 33.
35. Thompson JBThe Media and Modernity: A Social Theory of Media. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1995:.
36. Wynne B.Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake.East Asian Science, Technology and Society. 2007;1:99-110.