An important direction in recent thinking about public understanding of science and technology is embodied in the international trend within many democratic countries towards the promotion of citizen engagement. These developments entail the participation and deliberative involvement by lay publics in planning, decision-making and policy-making situations. In this paper we argue that citizen engagement exercises can usefully be understood as information systems. This characterization leads us to propose that the effectiveness by which such exercises utilize sources of knowledge—what we term their translation quality—should be adopted as a new criterion for their evaluation. We illustrate the applicability of this proposal by analyzing the GM Nation? public debate, a government-sponsored citizen engagement exercise that took place in Britain in 2002—3.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abelson, J., Forest, P.-G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E. and Gauvin, F.-P. (2003) “Deliberations about Deliberative Methods: Issues in the Design and Evaluation of Public Participation Processes,” Social Science and Medicine57: 239—51.
2.
Alvesson, M. (2004) Knowledge Work and Knowledge-Intensive Firms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M. and Robson, K. (2001) Focus Groups in Social Research. London: SAGE.
4.
Button, G. (1993) “The Curious Case of the Disappearing Technology ,” in G. Button (ed.) Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction and Technology, pp. 10—28. London: Routledge.
5.
Campbell, S. and Townsend, E. (2003) “Flaws Undermine Results of UK Biotech Debate ,” Nature425: 559.
6.
Cec (2001) European Governance: a White Paper. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
7.
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1990) Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chichester: Wiley.
8.
Collins, H. and Evans, R. (2002) “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience,” Social Studies of Science32(2): 235—96.
9.
Corr Wilbourn (2003a) A Report on the Foundation Discussion Workshops Conducted to Inform the GM Public Debate. London: Corr Wilbourn Research and Development.
10.
Corr Wilbourn (2003b) Qualitative Research on a Series of Reconvened Group Discussions for the `Narrow but Deep' Strand of the GM Public Debate . London: Corr Wilbourn Research and Development.
11.
Defra et al. (2004) The GM Dialogue: Government Response. London, Edinburgh , Cardiff and Belfast: Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Scottish Executive Government, Welsh Assembly Government, and Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland .
12.
Dryzek, J. (2000) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
Feldman, M. (1989) Order without Design: Information Processing and Policy Making. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
Fielding, N. and Fielding, J. (1986) Linking Data. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
15.
Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. (1992) “Risk Management as a Post-normal Science ,” Risk Analysis12: 95—7.
16.
Goffman, E. (1975) Frame Analysis: an Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harmondsworth: Penguin .
17.
Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Mayer, S. and Wynne, B. (1997) Uncertain World: Genetically Modified Organisms, Food and Public Attitudes in Britain. Lancaster: Centre for the Study of Environmental Change.
18.
Harper, R. (1998) Inside the IMF: an Ethnography of Documents, Technology and Organisational Action. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
19.
Horlick-Jones, T. (1998) “Meaning and Contextualisation in Risk Assessment ,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety59: 79—89.
20.
Horlick-Jones, T. (2005) “Informal Logics of Risk: Contingency and Modes of Practical Reasoning,” Journal of Risk Research8(3): 253—72.
21.
Horlick-Jones, T. and Sime, J. (2004) “Living on the Border: Knowledge, Risk and Transdisciplinarity,” Futures36: 441—56.
22.
Horlick-Jones, T., Rowe, G., Walls, J., O'Riordan, T. and Pidgeon, N. (2002) “Proposals for the Evaluation of the UK Public Debate on the Possible Commercialisation of Genetically Modified Crops,” memorandum considered by the GM Nation? Public Debate Steering Board, September.
23.
Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., O'Riordan, T., Murdock, G., Tait, J. and Bruce, A. (2003) “Memorandum Submitted by the Understanding Risk Team and Collaborators,” in House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Conduct of the GM Public Debate, Eighteenth Report of the Session 2002—03, HC 1220, Ev50—Ev56. London: The Stationery Office.
24.
Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., O'Riordan, T., Murdock, G., Tait, J. and Bruce, A. (2004) A Deliberative Future? An Independent Evaluation of the GM Nation? Public Debate about the Possible Commercialisation of Transgenic Crops in Britain, 2003. Understanding Risk Programme, Working Paper 04-02. Norwich: School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia.
25.
Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W. and O'Riordan, T. (2006) “On Evaluating the GM Nation? Public Debate about the Commercialisation of Transgenic Crops in Britain,” New Genetics and Society, 25(3) pp. 265—288.
26.
Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., Murdock, G. and O'Riordan, T. (2007) The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement . London: Routledge.
27.
Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J. and Kitzinger, J. (in press) “Bricolage in Action: Learning about, Making Sense of, and Discussing Issues about Transgenic Crops and Food,” Health, Risk and Society.
28.
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (2000) Interaction and the Standardized Survey Interview: the Living Questionnaire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Irwin, A. and Wynne, B., eds (1996) Misunderstanding Science: the Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Jensen, P.E. (2005) “A Contextual Theory of Learning and the Learning Organization,” Knowledge and ProcessManagement12(1): 53—64.
31.
Kuhn, T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
32.
Linell, P. (1998) “Discourse across Boundaries: On Recontextualizations and the Blending of Voices in Professional Discourse,” Text18(2): 143—57.
33.
Manning, P. (1988) Symbolic Communication: Signifying Calls and the Police Response. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
Marris, C., Wynne, B., Simmons, P. and Weldon, S. (2001) Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe (PABE), Final Report to the European Commission, FAIR CT98-3844, DG12-SSMI. Brussels: The European Commission .
35.
National Research Council (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, ed. P. Stern and H. Fineberg.Washington DC: National Academy Press.
36.
Oecd (2001) Engaging Citizens in Policy-Making: Information, Consultation and Public Participation. PUMA Policy Briefing No.10. Paris: Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Development.
37.
Petts, J. (1997) “The Public-Expert Interface in Local Waste Management Decisions: Expertise, Credibility and Process,” Public Understanding of Science6: 359—81.
38.
Petts, J., Horlick-Jones, T. and Murdock, G. (2001) Social Amplification of Risk: the Media and the Public. Sudbury: HSE Books.
39.
Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J. and O'Riordan, T. (2005) “Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: the Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate,” Risk Analysis 25(2): 467—79.
40.
Prior, L. (2003) “Belief, Knowledge and Expertise: the Emergence of the Lay Expert in Medical Sociology,” Sociology of Health and Illness25: 41—57.
41.
Public Debate Steering Board (2003a) GM Nation? The Findings of the Public Debate. London: Department of Trade and Industry. URL: http://www.gmnation.org.uk
42.
Public Debate Steering Board (2003b) GM Nation? The Public Debate (the Debating Zone workbook). London: Department of Trade and Industry .
43.
Rosenhead, J. and Mingers, J., eds (2001) Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. Chichester: Wiley.
44.
Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. (2000) “Public Participation Methods: a Framework for Evaluation,” Science, Technology and Human Values25(1): 3—29.
45.
Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. (2004) “Evaluating Public-participation Exercises: a Research Agenda,” Science, Technology and Human Values29(4): 512—56.
46.
Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J. and Pidgeon, N. (2005) “Difficulties in Evaluating Public Engagement Initiatives: Reflections on an Evaluation of the UK GM Nation? Public Debate about Transgenic Crops,” Public Understanding of Science14: 331—52.
47.
Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. (in press) “Analysis of a Normative Framework for Evaluating Public Engagement Exercises: Reliability, Validity and Limitations,” Public Understanding of Science.
48.
Rowe, G., Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. (2006) “A Comparison of Responses to Internet and Postal Surveys in a Public Engagement Context,” Science Communication27(3): 352—75.
49.
Schön, D. and Rein, M. (1994) Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.
50.
Seale, C. (1999) The Quality of Qualitative Research. London: SAGE.
51.
Stirling, A. and Meyer, S. (1999) Rethinking Risk. Brighton: Science and Technology Policy Research Unit.
52.
Walls, J., Horlick-Jones, T., Niewöhner, J. and O'Riordan, T. (2005) “The Meta-governance of Risk: GM Crops and Mobile Telephones,” Journal of Risk Research8(7—8): 635—61.
53.
Williams, G. and Popay, J. (1994) “Lay Knowledge and the Privilege of Experience ,” in J. Gabe, D. Kelleher and G. Williams (eds) Challenging Medicine, pp. 118—39. London: Routledge.
54.
Wynne, B. (1995) “Public Understanding of Science,” in S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 361—88. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
