Public participation and dialogue

Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 173-184

  Einsiedel, Edna F ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b Council of Canadian Academies of Science ^*  (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84905579904     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203928240-18     Document Type: Chapter

References (54)

1. Burgess, J. and Chilvers, J. (2006) ‘Upping the ante: a conceptual framework for designing and evaluating participatory technology assessments’, Science and Public Policy, 33: 713-28.
2. Maasen, S. and Weingart, P. (2005) Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, Dordrecht: Springer.
3. Pidgeon, N. and Rogers-Hayden, T. (2007) ‘Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with publics:risk communication or upstream engagement?' Health, Risk and Society, 9: 191-210.
4. Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream, London: Demos.
5. Andersen, I.-E. and Jaeger, B. (1999) ‘Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: towards more democratic decision-making’, Science and Public Policy, 26: 331-40.
6. Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London: Verso.
7. Anon. (2004) ‘Going public’ (Editorial), Nature1, 431: 883.
8. Arendt, H. (1958) The Human Condition, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9. Arnstein, S. R. (1969) ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 35: 216-24.
10. Barnes, M., Newman, J. and Sullivan, H. (2004) ‘Power, participation, and political renewal: theoretical perspectives on public participation under New Labour in Britain’, Social Politics, 11: 267-79.
11. Beierle, T. and Cayford, J. (2002) Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.
12. Benhabib, S. (1998) ‘Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy’, in Benhabib, S. (ed.) Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13. Bijker, W. and Law, J. (eds) (1992) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Socio-Technical Change, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Burgess, J. and Chilvers, J. (2006) ‘Upping the ante: a conceptual framework for designing and evaluating participatory technology assessments’, Science and Public Policy, 33: 713-28.
15. Burgess, J., Stirling, A., Clark, J., Davies, G., Eames, M., Staley, K. and Williamson, S. (2007) ‘Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science policy decisions’, Public Understanding of Science, 16: 299-322.
16. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2000) Convention on Biological Diversity, UN Environmental Program; www.cbd.int/biosafety/protocol.shtml
17. Coote, A. and Lenaghan, J. (1997) Citizen Juries: Theory into Practice, London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
18. Crosby, N. (1995) ‘Citizens’ juries: one solution for difficult environmental questions’, in Renn, O., Webler, T. and Wiedemann, P. (eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
19. Einsiedel, E., Jelsøe, E. and Breck, T. (2001) ‘Publics at the technology table: the consensus conference in Denmark, Canada and Australia’, Public Understanding of Science, 10: 1-6.
20. Fischer, F. (2003) Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Fraser, N. (1992) ‘Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy’, in Calhoun, C. (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. (1994) ‘The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a postnormal science’, Ecological Economics, 10: 197-207.
23. Giddens, A. (1998) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.
24. Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
25. Heath, D., Rapp, R. and Taussig, K. (2004) ‘Genetic citizenship’, in Nugent, D. and Vincent, J. (eds) Companion to the Handbook of Political Anthropology, London: Blackwell, 152-67.
26. Irwin, A. (2001) ‘Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences’, Public Understanding of Science, 10: 1-18.
27. Irwin, A. and Michael, M. (2003) Science, Social Theory, and Public Knowledge, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
28. Jasanoff, S. (2003) '(No) accounting for expertise’, Science and Public Policy, 30: 157-62.
29. Jasanoff, S. (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States, Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
30. Joss, S. and Bellucci, S. (2002) Participatory Technology Assessment: European Perspectives, London:Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster in association with TA Swiss.
31. Joss, S. and Durant, J. (1995) Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe, London: Science Museum.
32. Kemp, R. V., Bennett, D. G. and White, M. J. (2006) ‘Recent trends and developments in dialogue on radioactive waste management: experiences from the UK’, Environment International, 32: 1021-32.
33. Maasen, S. and Weingart, P. (2005) Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, Dordrecht: Springer.
34. MacKenzie, D. and Wajcman, J. (eds) (1985) The Social Shaping of Technology: How the Refrigerator Got Its Hum, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
35. Michael, M. (1998) ‘Between citizen and consumer: multiplying the meanings of the public understandings of science’, Public Understanding of Science, 7: 313-27.
36. Nowotny, H. (2003) ‘Democratizing expertise and socially robust knowledge’, Science and Public Policy, 30: 151-6.
37. Oudshoorn, N. and Pinch, T. (2002) ‘How users and non-users matter’, in Oudshoorn, N. and Pinch, T. (eds) How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users of Technology, Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
38. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2001) ‘Open Channels: Public Dialogue in Science and Technology’, Report 153, London: House of Commons.
39. Petryna, A. (2002) Life Exposed: Biological Citizens after Chernobyl, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
40. Pidgeon, N. and Rogers-Hayden, T. (2007) ‘Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with publics:risk communication or upstream engagement?' Health, Risk and Society, 9: 191-210.
41. Pring, G., Zillman, D. and Lucas, A. (2002) ‘The law of public participation in global energy and resources development’, Journal of Energy and Natural Resources Law, 20: 79-83.
42. Ravetz, J. (1999) ‘What is post-normal science?' Futures, 31: 647-53.
43. Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44. Rip, A., Misa, T. and Schot, J. (1995) Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment, London: Pinter.
45. Schot, J. (2001) ‘Towards new forms of participatory technology development’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 13: 39-52.
46. Sclove, R. (1995) Democracy and Technology, New York: Guilford Press.
47. Seifert, F. (2006) ‘Local steps in an international career: a Danish-style consensus conference in Austria’, Public Understanding of Science, 15: 73-88.
48. Stilgoe, J., Irwin, A. and Jones, K. (2006) The Received Wisdom: Opening Up Expert Advice, London: Demos.
49. Tarrow, S. (1994) Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action, and Mass Politics in the Modern State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50. UN (1992) Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (Agenda 21), 23.1-32.14, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs; http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21toc.htm
51. UN ECE (1998) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making, and Access to Justice on Environmental Matters, Aarhus, Denmark: UN Economic Comission for Europe; www.unece.org/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf
52. Venter, C. and Cohen, D. (2004) ‘The century of biology’, New Perspectives Quarterly, 21: 73-7.
53. Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream, London: Demos.
54. Wynne, B. (2006) ‘Public engagement or dialogue as a means of restoring public trust in science? Hitting the notes but missing the music’, Community Genetics, 9: 211-20.