ArrowKJ (1951) Social Choice and Individual Values. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2.
BinderARScheufeleDABrossardD (2010) Misguided science policy?The pitfalls of using public meetings as surrogate gauges of public opinion. Working paper, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI.
3.
BodmerWWilkinsJ (1992) Research to improve public understanding programmes. Public Understanding of Science1(1): 7–10.
4.
CaswillCRaynerS (2009) Empowered or reduced? Reflections on the citizen and the push for participation. In: StilgoeJ (ed.) The Road Ahead: Public Dialogue on Science and Technology. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, pp. 31–40.
5.
EinsiedelE (2008) Public participation and dialogue. In: BucchiMTrenchB (eds) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London: Routledge, pp. 173–184.
6.
GavelinKWilsonRDoubledayR (2007) Democratic Technologies? The Final Report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). London: Involve.
7.
HabermasJ (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
HibbingJRTheiss-MorseE (2002) Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
JowellRHedgesBLynnPFarrantGHeathA (1993) Review. The 1992 British election: The failure of the polls. Public Opinion Quarterly57(2): 238–263.
10.
MejlgaardNStaresS (2010) Participation and competence as joint components in a cross-national analysis of scientific citizenship. Public Understanding of Science19(5): 545–561.
11.
OrneM (1962) On the social psychology of the psychology experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist17(11): 776–783.
12.
PowellMColinMKleinmanDDelborneJAndersonA (2011) Imagining ordinary citizens? Conceptualized and actual participants for deliberations on emerging technologies. Science as Culture20(1): 37–70.
13.
RawlsJ (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
StirlingA (2008) “Opening up” and “closing down”: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, and Human Values33(2): 262–294.
15.
TrenchB (2008) Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In: ChengDClaessensMGascoigneTMetcalfeJSchieleBShiS (eds) Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 119–135.
16.
YeagerDSKrosnickJAChangLJavitzHSLevenduskyMSSimpserAWangR (2011) Comparing the accuracy of RDD telephone surveys and Internet surveys conducted with probability and non-probability samples. Public Opinion Quarterly75: 709–747.