This paper contributes to ongoing discussions on democratic engagement through an exploration of citizen participation in two citizen consensus conferences on nanotechnology, one held in 2005 and the second in 2008. We analyze the factors that motivate citizens to participate formally in debates about emerging “high technologies” and consider demographic and related characteristics of the participants in these two consensus conferences and the reasons they provided for participating. We suggest that in an era in which the barriers to civic engagement—most especially time—are large for many citizens, significant incentives are likely to affect participation. These incentives may be internal (e.g. a personal interest in a topic or an investment in a policy outcome) or external (e.g. money). In this context, we critique the aim of recruiting “blank slate” participants for consensus conferences and other deliberative democratic forums.
BohmanJ. (1996) Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
BrownM. B. (2006) “Survey Article: Citizen Panels and the Concept of Representation,” Journal of Political Philosophy14(2): 203–25.
3.
BrownP.MikkelsenE. J. (1990) No Safe Place: Toxic Waste, Leukemia, and Community Action. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
4.
DelborneJ.AndersonA. A.KleinmanD. L.ColinM.PowellM. (forthcoming) “Virtual Deliberation? Prospects and Challenges for Integrating the Internet in Consensus Conferences,” Public Understanding of Science.
5.
EinsiedelE. F.EastlickD. L. (2000) “Consensus Conferences as Deliberative Democracy,” Science Communication21(4): 323–43.
6.
EinsiedelE.JelsøeE.BreckT. (2001) “Publics at the Technology Table: The Consensus Conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia,” Public Understanding of Science10(1): 83–98.
7.
EpsteinS. (1996) Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
8.
GallegoA. (2007) “Inequality in Political Participation: Contemporary Patterns in European Countries,” Paper 07-01, Center for the Study of Democracy, University of California, Irvine. URL (consulted 22 May 2009): http://repositories.cdlib.csd/07-01
9.
GustonD. H. (1999) “Evaluating the First U.S. Consensus Conference: The Impact of the Citizens’ Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy,” Science, Technology and Human Values24(4): 451–82.
10.
HamlettP. W. (n.d.) “Enhancing Public Participation in Participatory Public Policy Analysis Concerning Technology: A Report of Two Danish-Style Consensus Conferences,” Unpublished paper, North Carolina State University.
11.
KleinmanD. L. (2000) “Democratizations of Science and Technology,” in KleinmanD. L. (ed.) Science, Technology, and Democracy, pp. 139–66. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
12.
KleinmanD. L. (2005) Science and Technology in Society: From Biotechnology to the Internet. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
13.
KleinmanD. L.PowellM.GriceJ.AdrianJ.LobesC. (2007) “A Toolkit for Democratizing Science and Technology Policy: The Practical Mechanics of Organizing a Consensus Conference,” Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society27(2): 154–69.
14.
MansbridgeJ.Hartz-KarpJ.AmengualM.GastilJ. (2006) “Norms of Deliberation: An Inductive Study,” Journal of Public Deliberation2(1): Article 7, URL: http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol2/iss1/art7
15.
MerkleD. M. (1996) “The Polls—Review: The National Issues Convention Deliberative Poll,” Public Opinion Quarterly60(4): 588–619.
16.
PowellM.ColinM. (2008) “Meaningful Citizen Engagement in Science and Technology: What Would it Take?,” Science Communication30(1): 126–36.
17.
PowellM.KleinmanD. L. (2008) “Building Citizen Capacities for Participation in Nanotechnology Decision-making: The Democratic Virtues of the Consensus Conference Model,” Public Understanding of Science17(3): 329–48.
18.
PutnamR. (1995) “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital,” Journal of Democracy6(1): 65–78.
19.
PutnamR. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
20.
ScheufeleD.BrossardD. (2008a) “Nanotechnology as a Moral Issue? Religion and Science in the U.S.,” Professional Ethics Report21(1): 1–3. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
21.
ScheufeleD.BrossardD. (2008b) “Attitudes toward Nanotechnology in Europe and the U.S.,” Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
22.
SchlozmanK. L.VerbaS.BradyH. E. (1999) “Civic Participation and the Equality Problem,” in SkocpolT.FiorinaM. (eds) Civic Engagement in American Democracy, pp. 427–59. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
23.
SchorJ. (1992) The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure. New York: Basic Books.
24.
ScloveR. (2000) “Town Meetings on Technology: Consensus Conferences as Democratic Participation,” in KleinmanD. L. (ed.) Science, Technology, and Democracy, pp. 33–48. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
25.
SkocpolT.FiorinaM. (eds) (1999a) Civic Engagement in American Democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
26.
SkocpolT.FiorinaM. (1999b) “Making Sense of the Civic Engagement Debate,” in SkocpolT.FiorinaM. (eds) Civic Engagement in American Democracy, pp. 1–23. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
27.
WynneB. (1992) “Misunderstood Misunderstandings: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science,” Public Understanding of Science1(3): 281–304.
