Research suggests that deliberative experiences may improve citizens' perceptions of their abilities to participate meaningfully in political and societal issues. Previous studies, however, have not looked in depth at citizens' perceptions after participating in consensus conferences. In this case study, drawing on in-depth interviews with participants of a consensus conference on nanotechnology, we consider the following questions: 1) How do citizen participants feel the consensus conference experience affected their knowledge and efficacy related to participation in nanotechnology issues? 2) Which aspects of the conference (if any) do citizens think shaped their knowledge and efficacy? 3) Are citizens motivated to engage in future participatory mechanisms related to nanotechnology issues, and why or why not? Although our case study is exploratory, it suggests that even if consensus conferences have little or no influence on policy or policymakers, they may empower citizens by improving their perceived abilities to participate meaningfully in technoscientific issues.
Aronowitz, S. (1988) Science as Power: Discourse and Ideology in Modern Science. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
2.
Barns, I. (1995) " Manufacturing Consensus? Reflections on the UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology ," Science as Culture5: 199-216.
3.
Bulkeley, H. (2000) " Common Knowledge? Public Understanding of Climate Change in Newcastle, Australia ," Public Understanding of Science9: 313-33.
4.
Burkhalter, S. , Gastil, J. and Kelshaw, T. (2002) " A Conceptual Definition and Theoretical Model of Public Deliberation in Small Face-to-Face Groups ," Communication Theory12(4): 398-422.
5.
Craig, S.C. , Niemi, R.G. and Silver, G.E. (1990) " Political Efficacy and Trust: A Report on the NES Pilot Study Items ," Political Behavior12: 289-314.
6.
Doble, J. (1995) " Public Opinion about Issues Characterized by Technological Complexity and Scientific Uncertainty ," Public Understanding of Science4: 95-118.
7.
Einsiedel, E. and Eastlick, D. (2000) " Consensus Conferences as Deliberative Democracy ," Science Communication21: 323-43.
8.
Einsiedel, E. , Jelsøe, E. and Breck, T. (2001) " Publics at the Table: The Consensus Conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia ," Public Understanding of Science10: 83-98.
9.
Ferguson, E. (2001) " The Roles of Contextual Moderation and Personality in Relation to the Knowledge-Risk Link in the Workplace ," Journal of Risk Research4(4): 323-40.
10.
Fischer, F. (2000) Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
11.
Frewer, L.J. , Shepherd, R. and Sparks, P. (1994) " The Interrelationship between Perceived Knowledge Control and Risk Associated with a Range of Food-related Hazards Targeted at the Individual, other People and Society ," Journal of Food Safety14: 19-40.
12.
Gandy, O.H. (1982) Beyond Agenda Setting: Information Subsidies and Public Policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.
13.
Garvin, T. (2001) " Analytical Paradigms: The Epistemological Distances between Scientists, Policy Makers, and the Public ," Risk Analysis21(3): 443-55.
14.
Gastil, J. and Dillard, J.P. (1999a) " Increasing Political Sophistication through Public Deliberation ," Political Communication16: 3-23.
15.
Gastil, J. and Dillard, J.P. (1999b) " The Aims, Methods, and Effects of Deliberative Civic Education through the National Issues Forums ," Communication Education48: 179-92.
16.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.
17.
Gregory, J. and Miller, S. (1998) Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility . New York: Plenum Trade.
18.
Guston, D. (1999) " Evaluating the First US Consensus Conference: The Impact of the Citizens' Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy ," Science, Technology, and Human Values24(4): 451-82.
19.
Hamlett, P. (2003) " Technology Theory and Deliberative Democracy ," Science, Technology, and Human Values28(1): 112-40.
20.
Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Jasanoff, S. (2000) "The `Science Wars' and American Politics," in M. Dierkes and C. von Grote (eds) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology, pp. 39-60. Amsterdam: Harwood.
22.
Joss, S. and Durant, J., eds (1995) The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. London: The Science Museum .
23.
Kinchy, A. and Kleinman, D.L. (2005) " Democratizing Science, Debating Values ," Dissent52(3): 54-62.
24.
Kleinman, D.L. (1998) " Beyond the Science Wars: Contemplating the Democratization of Science ," Politics and the Life Sciences16(2): 133-45.
25.
Kleinman, D.L., ed. (2000) Science, Technology, and Democracy. New York: State University of New York Press.
26.
Levy-Leblond, J.M. (1992) " About Misunderstandings about Misunderstandings ," Public Understanding of Science1: 17-21.
27.
Lewenstein, B.V. (1992) " The Meaning of `Public Understanding of Science' in the United States after World War II ," Public Understanding of Science1: 45-68.
28.
McLeod, J.M. , Scheufele, D.A. , Moy, P. , Horowitz, E.M. , Holbert, R.L. , Zhang, W. , Zubric, S. and Zubric, J. (1999) " Understanding Deliberation: The Effects of Discussion Networks on Participation in a Public Forum ," Communication Research26(6): 743-74.
29.
McLeod, J.M. , Zubric, J. , Kwak, N. , Powell, M. , Zhang, W. and Deshpande, S. (2000) " Cognitive Structure as a Mediator/Moderator of Communication Influence ," Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, August, Phoenix, AZ.
30.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (1994) Designing Qualitative Research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
31.
Miller, J.D. (1998) " The Measurement of Civic Scientific Literacy ," Public Understanding of Science7: 203-23.
32.
Morrell, M.E. (2003) " Survey and Experimental Evidence for a Reliable and Valid Measure of Internal Political Efficacy ," Public Opinion Quarterly67: 589-602.
33.
Nelkin, D. (1975) " The Political Impact of Technical Expertise ," Social Studies of Science5: 37 .
34.
Nelkin, D. (1995) Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: W.H. Freeman .
35.
Niemi, R.G. , Craig, S.C. and Mattei, F. (1991) " Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study ," American Political Science Review85: 1407-13.
36.
Petts, J. (2004) " Barriers to Participation and Deliberation in Risk Decisions: Evidence from Waste Management ," Journal of Risk Research7(2): 115-33.
37.
Putnam, R.D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
38.
Renn, O. , Webler, T. and Weidemann, P. (1995) "The Pursuit of Fair and Competent Citizen Participation ," in O. Renn , T. Webler and P. Weidemann (eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating New Models for Environmental Discourse, pp. 339-68. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer.
39.
Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2005) " A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms ," Science, Technology, and Human Values30(2): 251-90.
40.
Rowe, G. , Marsh, R. and Frewer, L.J. (2004) " Evaluation of a Deliberative Conference ," Science, Technology, and Human Values29(1): 88-121.
41.
Sclove, R. (2000) "Town Meetings on Technology: Consensus Conferences as Democratic Participation," in D.L. Kleinman (ed.) Science, Technology, and Democracy, pp. 33-48. New York: State University of New York Press.
42.
Shapin, S. (1992) " Why the Public Ought to Understand Science-in-the-Making ," Public Understanding of Science1: 27-30.
43.
Shoemaker, P.J. and Reese, S.D. (1996) Mediating the Message: Theories of Influence on Mass Media Content, 2nd edn. New York: Longman.
44.
Sirianni, C. and Friedland, L. (2001) Civic Innovation in America: Community Empowerment, Public Policy, and the Movement for Civic Renewal. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
45.
Sturgis, P. and Allum, N. (2004) " Science in Society: Re-evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes ," Public Understanding of Science13: 55-74.
46.
Thompson, E.P. and Kruglanski, A.W. (2000) Why We Evaluate: Functions of Attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
47.
Warren, M. (1992) " Democratic Theory and Self-transformation ," The American Political Science Review86(1): 8-23.
48.
Wood, W. , Rhodes, N. and Biek, M. (1995) "Working Knowledge and Attitude Strength: An Information-processing Analysis," in R.E. Petty and J.A. Krosnick (eds) Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, pp. 283-314. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
49.
Wynne, B. (1992) " Public Understanding of Science Research: New Horizons of Hall of Mirrors? ," Public Understanding of Science1: 37-43.
50.
Yearley, S. (2000) " Making Systematic Sense of Public Discontents with Expert Knowledge: Two Analytical Approaches and a Case Study ," Public Understanding of Science9: 105-22.
51.
Zimmerman, M.A. and Rappaport, J. (1988) " Citizen Participation, Perceived Control, and Psychological Empowerment ," American Journal of Community Psychology16(5): 725-50.
