Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Public Understanding of Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (14)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rowe, G.
Right arrow Articles by Pidgeon, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? public debate about transgenic crops

Gene Rowe

Consumer Science Group at the Institute of Food Research, Norwich (UK)

Tom Horlick-Jones

School of Social Sciences at Cardiff University (Wales, UK)

John Walls

School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UK)

Nick Pidgeon

University of East Anglia (UK)

In the realm of risk management, and policy-making more generally, "public engagement" is often advocated as an antidote to pathologies associated with traditional methods of policy-making, and associated deficit-model-driven communication strategies. The actual benefits of public engagement are, however, difficult to establish without thorough evaluation of specific engagement processes. Unfortunately, rigorous evaluation is difficult, and, perhaps for this reason, it has rarely been undertaken. In this paper we highlight a number of these difficulties in the light of our experiences in evaluating a major engagement initiative, namely the GM Nation? publice debate on the possible commercialization of transgenic crops, which took place in Britain in 2003. The difficulties we identify seem likely to be relevant to many, if not most, engagement evaluations. They are concerned with both theoretical/normative (how one should evaluate) and practical (how one does evaluate) issues. We suggest a number of possible solutions to these evaluation difficulties.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 14, No. 4, 331-352 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0963662505056611
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Science Technology SocietyHome page
S. Stares
Using Latent Class Models to Explore Cross-national Typologies of Public Engagement with Science and Technology in Europe
Science Technology and Society, July 1, 2009; 14(2): 289 - 329.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
S. Davies, E. McCallie, E. Simonsson, J. L. Lehr, and S. Duensing
Discussing dialogue: perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy
Public Understanding of Science, May 1, 2009; 18(3): 338 - 353.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
A. Ricroch and F. Jesus
Consultations of stakeholders on the roles of research in relation to genetically modified plants in France
Public Understanding of Science, January 1, 2009; 18(1): 91 - 102.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Science CommunicationHome page
J. C. Besley, V. L. Kramer, Qingjiang Yao, and C. Toumey
Interpersonal Discussion Following Citizen Engagement About Nanotechnology: What, If Anything, Do They Say?
Science Communication, December 1, 2008; 30(2): 209 - 235.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Science CommunicationHome page
V. Ward, P. Howdle, and S. Hamer
You & Your Body: A Case Study of Bioscience Communication at the University of Leeds
Science Communication, December 1, 2008; 30(2): 177 - 208.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
G. Rowe, T. Horlick-Jones, J. Walls, W. Poortinga, and N. F. Pidgeon
Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: reliability, validity and limitations
Public Understanding of Science, October 1, 2008; 17(4): 419 - 441.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Science Technology Human ValuesHome page
J. Chilvers
Deliberating Competence: Theoretical and Practitioner Perspectives on Effective Participatory Appraisal Practice
Science Technology Human Values, May 1, 2008; 33(3): 421 - 451.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Science Technology Human ValuesHome page
J. Chilvers
Deliberating Competence: Theoretical and Practitioner Perspectives on Effective Participatory Appraisal Practice
Science Technology Human Values, March 1, 2008; 33(2): 155 - 185.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
T. Horlick-Jones, G. Rowe, and J. Walls
Citizen engagement processes as information systems: the role of knowledge and the concept of translation quality
Public Understanding of Science, July 1, 2007; 16(3): 259 - 278.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
R. Schibeci and J. Harwood
Stimulating authentic community involvement in biotechnology policy in Australia
Public Understanding of Science, April 1, 2007; 16(2): 245 - 255.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
M. W. Bauer, N. Allum, and S. Miller
What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda
Public Understanding of Science, January 1, 2007; 16(1): 79 - 95.
[Abstract] [PDF]