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

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.

Analysing Dutch Science Cafés to better understand the science-society relationship

“…Arnstein, 1969;Dijkstra and Gutteling, 2012]. In addition, participation in discussions such as in science cafés may increase visitors' knowledge and efficacy, as has been argued by Powell and Lee Kleinman [2008]. Visitors of science cafés are able to join the discussions and develop their opinions.…”

“…In addition, all respondents agree that, despite the rising popularity of science cafés and the given examples of local influence, policy influence is only possible in an indirect way [cf. Powell and Lee Kleinman, 2008].…”

“…Thus, non-policy dialogue events 'may provide an important and effective venue for adults to voluntarily engage with science in the context of society' [Davies et al, 2009, p. 343], and may be places where citizens can become more familiar and informed about topics [cf. Powell and Lee Kleinman, 2008]. Learning, for example, may then be viewed as empowering participants for further debate while participants are free to explore all positions.…”

Nanotechnologies and emerging cultural spaces for the public communication of science and technologies

“…Other distinctive dimensions of inquiry have been on the narratives regarding the future expectations generated about nanotechnology's development 13 and on the practices of involvement and participation of citizens into debates regarding ethical and social implications of nanotechnologies. 14,15,16 As it is evident from this short and certainly incomplete review of the most important trajectories emerged in the social study of the communication of nanotechnology, this area has produced a huge and variegated collection of researches on the how nanotechnology circulated in the today contemporary culture. The articles presented here help to advance this debate by addressing the proliferation of social dimensions in which nanotechnologies are discussed by looking at three cultural spaces where nanotechnologies are represented and debated.…”

Community-Based Research and the Democratization of Science and Technology. A Framework for the Evaluation of Science Shop Work

“…Controversies have been widely appreciated as opportunities for analyzing the uncertainties and complexities of science and technology (Latour, 1989, Callon, 1981, Barthe and Linhardt, 2009, Barry, 2001, Meyer, 2009 , as well as for giving account of the distributed character of knowledge production in form of 'hybrid forums' Rip, 1991, Callon et al, 2009) This interest in controversies as opportunities for promoting public participation in science and technology is certainly shared with other participatory devices. Constructive technology assessment (Rip, Misa and Schot, 1995; discussed in some detail in chapter one) or consensus conferences (Joss and Duran, 1995) usually deal with large scale controversies on conflictive issues such as genetically modified organisms (Einsiedel, Jelsøe, and Breck, 2001), telecommunications (Guston, 1999), or nanotechnologies (Powell and Kleinman, 2008;Laurent, 2009;Rip, 2007 We would then ask for the particular kind of 'public engagement' that an issue-centered science shop may envisage and enact. Different participatory devices are based on different 166 Revealing the politics contained in apparently scientific or technical questions as well as the technoscience contained in politics (Barry, 2001), the analysis of controversies allows partially reconstructing the chains created between the politics of knowledge or design and policy making (see chapter one).…”