Consensus conferences have functioned well in small, relatively homogeneous countries such as Denmark. In the geographically sprawling and socially diverse United States, however, meaningful citizen deliberation and decision-making on science and technology depends upon the ability to bring more participants “into the room.” The National Citizens’ Technology Forum, held in March 2008, responded to this need by integrating panels of citizens from multiple US cities in structured face-to-face and online deliberation. We analyze the success of this experiment by focusing on the experience of participants during the online deliberation component. We conclude with recommendations for future organizers of online deliberation, focusing on the benefits of combining synchronous and asynchronous engagement and improving facilitation practice and software capabilities.
BimberB. (1998) “The Internet and Political Transformation: Populism, Community, and Accelerated Pluralism,” Polity31(1): 133–60.
2.
CobbM. D.HamlettP. (2008) “The First National Citizens’ Technology Forum on Converging Technologies and Human Enhancement: Adapting the Danish Consensus Conference in the USA,” Paper presented at “Public Communication of Science and Technology,” Malmo, Sweden, 25–27 June.
3.
DahlgrenP. (2000) “The Internet and the Democratization of Civic Culture,” Political Communication17(4): 335–40.
4.
DietzT.SternP. C. (eds) (2008) Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. URL (consulted 27 July 2009): http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12434#toc
5.
DryzekJ. S. (2002) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
FishkinJ. S. (1995) The Voice of the People. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
7.
FishkinJ. S. (2000) “Virtual Democratic Possibilities: Prospects for Internet Democracy,” Paper presented at “Internet, Democracy and Public Goods,” Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 6–10 November. URL (consulted 27 July 2009): http://cdd.stanford.edu/research/papers/2000/brazil_paper.pdf
8.
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.
9.
HamlettP. W. (2002) “Adapting the Internet to Citizen Deliberations: Lessons Learned,” in Proceedings from the International Symposium on Technology and Society, 6–8 June, pp. 213–18. IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology.
10.
HamlettP. W. (2007) The National Citizens’ Technology Forum Handbook. The Science, Technology & Society Program at North Carolina State University.
11.
HamlettP. W. (n.d.) “Enhancing Public Participation in Participatory Public Policy Analysis Concerning Technology: A Report of Two Danish-Style Consensus Conferences,” Unpublished manuscript. URL (consulted 27 July 2009): http://www.ifz.tugraz.at/index_en.php/filemanager/download/134/hamlett.pdf.
12.
HarawayD. ([1988] 1999) “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective,” in BiagioliM. (ed.) The Science Studies Reader, pp. 172–88. New York: Routledge.
13.
JossS. (1995) “Evaluating Consensus Conferences: Necessity or Luxury?,” in JossS.DurantJ. (eds) Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe, pp. 89–108. London: The Science Museum.
14.
JossS. (1998) “Danish Consensus Conferences as a Model of Participatory Technology Assessment: An Impact Study of Consensus Conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish Public Debate,” Science and Public Policy25(1): 2–22.
15.
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 Society27(2): 154–69.
16.
LatourB.WoolgarS. ([1979] 1986) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, 2nd edn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17.
LongstaffH.BurgessM. (forthcoming) “Recruiting for Representation in Public Deliberation on the Ethics of Biobanks,” Public Understanding of Science.
18.
MansbridgeJ.Hartz-KarpJ.AmegualM.GastilJ. (2006) “Norms of Deliberation: An Inductive Study,” Journal of Public Deliberation2(1): Article 7, URL (consulted 27 July 2009): http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol2/iss1/art7
19.
MerkleD. M. (1996) “The Polls—Review: The National Issues Convention Deliberative Poll,” Public Opinion Quarterly60(4): 588–619.
20.
MinS.-J. (2007) “Online vs. Face-to-Face Deliberation: Effects on Civic Engagement,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12(4): Article 11, URL (consulted 27 July 2009): http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/min.html
21.
NoveckB. S. (2004) “Unchat: Democratic Solution for a Wired World,” in ShaneP. M.(ed.) Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal through the Internet, pp. 21–34. New York: Routledge.
22.
PriceV.CappellaJ. N. (2002) “Online Deliberation and its Influence: The Electronic Dialogue Project in Campaign 2000,” IT & Society1(1): 303–29.
23.
PriceV.FeldmanL.FreresD.CappellaJ.ZhangW. (2006) “Informing Public Opinion about Health Care Reform through Online Deliberation,” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany. URL (consulted 27 July 2009): http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p92260_index.html
24.
RoweG.FrewerL. J. (2000) “Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation,” Science, Technology, and Human Values25(1): 3–29.
25.
RoweG.FrewerL. J. (2004) “Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda,” Science, Technology, and Human Values29(4): 512–56.
26.
RoweG.FrewerL. J. (2005) “A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms,” Science, Technology, and Human Values30(2): 251–90.
27.
RoweG.GammackJ. G. (2004) “Promise and Perils of Electronic Public Engagement,” Science and Public Policy31: 39–54, URL (consulted 27 July 2009): http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154304781780181
28.
RoweG.MarshR.FrewerL. J. (2004) “Evaluation of a Deliberative Conference,” Science, Technology, and Human Values29(1): 88–121.
29.
ScloveR. E. (2000) “Town Meetings on Technology: Consensus Conferences as Democratic Participation,” in KleinmanD. L. (ed.) Science, Technology, and Democracy, pp. 33–48. Albany: State University of New York Press.
30.
SiegelJ.DubrovskyV.KieslerS.McguireT. W. (1986) “Group Processes in Computer-Mediated Communication,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes37: 157–87.
31.
SunsteinC. (2001) Republic.Com. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
