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 (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
0963662506068000v1
17/3/329    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
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 Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Powell, M.
Right arrow Articles by Kleinman, D. L.
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?

Article

Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: the democratic virtues of the consensus conference model

Maria Powell1* and Daniel Lee Kleinman2

1 University of WisconsinMadison
2 Department of Rural Sociology, University of WisconsinMadison

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.


  Abstract

Research suggests that deliberative experiences may improve citizens perceptions of their abilities to participate meaningfully in political and societal issues. Previous studies, however, have not looked in depth at citizens perceptions after participating in consensus conferences. In this case study, drawing on in-depth interviews with participants of a consensus conference on nanotechnology, we consider the following questions: 1) How do citizen participants feel the consensus conference experience affected their knowledge and efficacy related to participation in nanotechnology issues? 2) Which aspects of the conference (if any) do citizens think shaped their knowledge and efficacy? 3) Are citizens motivated to engage in future participatory mechanisms related to nanotechnology issues, and why or why not? Although our case study is exploratory, it suggests that even if consensus conferences have little or no influence on policy or policymakers, they may empower citizens by improving their perceived abilities to participate meaningfully in technoscientific issues.

Key Words: consensus conferences, citizen engagement, citizen efficacy, citizen empowerment, nanotechnology, democracy and science

First published on May 22, 2008, doi:10.1177/0963662506068000

Public Understanding of Science 2008;17:329.

A more recent version of this article appeared on July 1, 2008

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
 Am. J. Bot.Home page
M. C. Nisbet and D. A. Scheufele
What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions
Am. J. Botany, October 1, 2009; 96(10): 1767 - 1778.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of Science Technology SocietyHome page
M. C. Powell and M. Colin
Participatory Paradoxes: Facilitating Citizen Engagement in Science and Technology From the Top-Down?
Bulletin of Science Technology Society, August 1, 2009; 29(4): 325 - 342.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Science CommunicationHome page
M. C. Powell and M. Colin
Meaningful Citizen Engagement in Science and Technology: What Would it Really Take?
Science Communication, September 1, 2008; 30(1): 126 - 136.
[Abstract] [PDF]