The current study explores interpersonal discussion following participation in a novel program of citizen engagement about nanotechnology. Participants answered closed- and open-ended questions about their discursive behavior in a postengagement survey. The study seeks to address whether organizers of citizen engagement can expect participants to extend the impacts of engagement beyond direct participants through interpersonal discussion. Respondents reported moderate levels of postengagement discussion and appeared to say positive things about both nanotechnology and the experts who contributed to the engagement program. Respondents also reported primarily talking about nanotechnology in terms of scientific progress while using a range of fairness and competence frames to discuss experts and the program.
Besley, J.C., & McComas, K.A. (2005). Framing justice: Using the concept of procedural justice to advance political communication research. Communication Theory, 15, 414-436.
2.
Besley, J.C., & McComas, K.A. (2007). Reporting on fairness in civic life: Interviews with journalists about writing on local political leaders. Journalism Practice, 1, 339-355.
3.
Besley, J.C., McComas, K.A., & Waks, L. (2006). Media use and the perceived justice of local science authorities. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83, 801-818.
4.
Bohman, J., & Rehg, W. (1997). Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
Bryce, J. (1888). The American commonwealth. New York: Macmillan.
6.
Cable News Network. (2004). Election results. Retrieved October 9, 2007, from http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/
7.
Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307-326.
8.
Coleman, C.L. (1993). The influence of mass-media and interpersonal communication on societal and personal risk judgments. Communication Research, 20, 611-628.
9.
Colquitt, J.A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C.P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3-58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
Delli Carpini, M.X. (2004). Mediating democratic engagement: The impact of communications and citizens' involvement in political and civic life. In L. Lee Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research (pp. 395-434). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
Delli Carpini, M.X., Cook, F.L., & Jacobs, L.R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315-344.
12.
DeVellis, R.F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Einsiedel, E.F. (2002). Assessing a controversial medical technology: Canadian public consultations on xenotransplantation. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 315-331.
14.
Einsiedel, E.F., Jelsoe, E., & Breck, T. (2001). Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 83-98.
15.
Entman, R.M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm . Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
16.
Fishkin, J.S. (1997). The voice of the people: Public opinion and democracy (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Fishkin, J.S., & Luskin, R.C. (1999). Bringing deliberation to the democratic dialogue . In M. McCombs & A. Reynolds (Eds.), The poll with the human face: The national issues convention experiment in political communication (pp. 3-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
Gamson, W.A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1-37.
20.
Gastil, J., & Levine, P. (2005). The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
Gorss, J.B., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2005). The salience of small: Nanotechnology coverage in the American press, 1986-2004. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association New York, NY.
23.
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24.
Hardy, B.W., & Scheufele, D.A. (2005). Examining differential gains from Internet use: Comparing the moderating role of talk and online interactions. Journal of Communication, 55, 71-84.
25.
Hayes, A.F. (2005a). An SPSS procedure for computing Krippendorff's alpha (Version 1.0) [Computer software]. Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes/macros.htm
26.
Hayes, A.F. (2005b). Statistical methods for communication science . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
27.
Hwang, Y., & Southwell, B.G. (2007). Can a personality trait predict talk about science? Sensation seeking as a science communication targeting variable. Science Communication, 29, 198-216.
28.
Joss, S., & Bellucci, S. (Eds.). (2002). Participatory technology assessment: European perspectives. Gateshead, UK: Athenaeum Press/Centre for the Study of Democracy.
29.
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
30.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An Introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
31.
Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people's choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Duell.
32.
McComas, K.A., Arvai, J.L., & Besley, J.C. (in press). Linking public participation and decision making through risk communication. In R. L. Heath & D. O'Hair (Eds.), Handbook of crisis and risk communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
McCombs, M.E., & Reynolds, A. (1999). The poll with a human face: The national issues convention experiment in political communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
McLeod, J.M., Scheufele, D.A., & Moy, P. (1999). Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation . Political Communication, 16, 315-336.
35.
Morton, T.A., & Duck, J.M. (2001). Communication and health beliefs: Mass and interpersonal influences on perceptions of risk to self and others. Communication Research, 28, 602-626.
36.
Nir, L. (2005). Ambivalent social networks and their consequences for participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 422-442.
37.
Nisbet, M.C., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2002). Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication, 23, 359-391.
38.
Nisbet, M.C., & Scheufele, D.A. (2007, October). The future of public engagement. The Scientist, pp. 39-44.
39.
Page, B.I. (1996). Who deliberates? Mass media in modern democracy . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40.
Price, V., & Neijens, P. (1997). Opinion quality in public opinion research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 9, 336-360.
41.
Rasinski, K.A., Bradburn, N.M., & Lauen, D. (1999). Effects of NIC media coverage among the public . In M. McCombs & A. Reynolds (Eds.), The poll with a human face: The national issues convention experiment in political communication (pp. 145-165). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42.
Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P.M. (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
43.
Reynolds, A. (1999). Local television coverage of the NIC. In M. McCombs & A. Reynolds (Eds.), The Poll with a Human Face: The National Issues Convention Experiment in Political Communication (pp. 113-132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
44.
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L.J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25, 3-29.
45.
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L.J. (2004). Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science Technology & Human Values, 29, 512-557.
46.
Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., & 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 Science, 14, 331-352.
47.
Rowe, G., Marsh, R., & Frewer, L.J. (2004). Evaluation of a deliberative conference. Science Technology & Human Values, 29, 88-121.
48.
Ryfe, D.M. (2002). The practice of deliberative democracy: A study of 16 deliberative organizations. Political Communication , 19, 359-377.
49.
Scheufele, D.A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 103-122.
50.
Scheufele, D.A. (2000). Talk or conversation? Dimensions of interpersonal discussion and their implications for participatory democracy. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 727-743.
51.
Scheufele, D.A., Hardy, B.W., Brossard, D., Waismel-Manor, I.S., & Nisbet, E. (2006). Democracy based on difference: Examining the links between structural heterogeneity, heterogeneity of discussion networks, and democratic citizenship. Journal of Communication, 56, 728-753.
52.
Scheufele, D.A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9-20.
53.
Shah, D.V., & Scheufele, D.A. (2006). Explicating opinion leadership: Nonpolitical dispositions, information consumption, and civic participation . Political Communication, 23, 1-22.
54.
Sjoberg, L. (1999). Perceived competence and motivation in industry and government as factors in risk perception. In G. Cvetkovich & R. E. Lofstedt (Eds.), Social trust and the management of risk (pp. 89-99, 179-180). London: Earthscan.
55.
Smith, T.W. (1999). The delegates experience. In M. McCombs & A. Reynolds (Eds.), The Poll with a human face: The national issues convention experiment in political communication (pp. 39-58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
56.
Southwell, B.G., & Torres, A. (2006). Connecting interpersonal and mass communication: Science news exposure, perceived ability to understand science, and conversation . Communication Monographs, 73, 334-350.
57.
Southwell, B.G., & Yzer, M.C. (2007). The roles of interpersonal communication in mass media campaigns. Communication Yearbook, 31, 420-462.
58.
Toumey, C. (2006). Science and democracy. Nature Nanotechnology, 1, 6-7.
59.
Toumey, C., & Baird, D. (2006). Building nanoliteracy in the university and beyond . Nature Biotechnology, 24, 721-722.
60.
Trumbo, C.W. (1998). Communication channels and risk information: A cost-utility model. Science Communication, 20, 190-203.
61.
Tyler, T.R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 57, 830-838.
62.
Tyler, T.R., Boeckmann, R.J., Smith, H.J., & Huo, Y.J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: Westview.
63.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). American factfinder. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov
64.
van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of personality and social psychology, 80, 931-941.
65.
van den Bos, K. (2005). What is responsible for the fair process effect? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 273-300). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
66.
Xenos, M. (2008). New mediated deliberation: Blog and press coverage of the Alito nomination. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 13, 485-503.
