Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Kotchetkova, Inna; Evans, Robert John
Publisher: Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University
Languages: English
Types: Book
Subjects: Q1, H1, T1
This paper explores the contribution of qualitative research to public\ud engagement with science and technology by critically evaluating a deliberative\ud exercise designed to incorporate several aspects of contemporary science\ud studies. The project used in-depth interviews, reconvened focus groups and a\ud roundtable workshop to simulate ‘upstream’ public engagement by investigating\ud how patients, carers and lay citizens evaluated different treatment options for\ud Type One diabetes. By comparing how these treatments were discussed in\ud focus groups and a roundtable workshop we show how the choice of research\ud setting makes a significant difference to the data collected. In particular, we\ud show that the relatively homogeneous focus groups allowed more perspectives\ud to emerge than the apparently more heterogeneous roundtable, which was\ud ultimately dominated by the patient perspective. In reflecting on these events,\ud we acknowledge both the vulnerability of deliberative methods to factors beyond\ud the researchers’ control but also ask what status the outcome of such\ud deliberations should have if these vulnerabilities could be eliminated.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Abelson, J., Forest, P.G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E. and Gauvin, F.P. (2003) 'Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes', Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 57, pp. 239-251.
    • Agar, M. and MacDonald, J. (1995) 'Focus groups and Ethnography', Human Organization, Vol. 54, pp. 78-86.
    • Atkinson, P.A. (2006) Everyday Arias: An Operatic Ethnography, Oxford: Altamira Press.
    • Barnes, M. (2005) 'The same old process? Older people, participation and deliberation', Ageing & Society, Vol. 25, No. 2 (March), pp. 245-259.
    • Bohman, J. (2000) Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy, London: MIT Press.
    • Burgess, J., Stirling, A., Clark, J., Davies, G., Eames, M., Staley, K., and Williamson, S. (2007) 'Deliberative Mapping: A Novel AnalyticDeliberative Methodology to Support Contested Science-Policy Decisions', Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 299-322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662507077510
    • Callon, M. and Rabeharisoa, V. (2004) 'Gino's lesson on humanity: genetics, mutual entanglements and the sociologist's role', Economy and Society, Vol. 33 No.1, pp. 1-27 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0308514042000176711
    • Carson, L. and Martin, B. (2002) 'Random selection of citizens for technological decision making', Science and Public Policy, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 105-113.
    • Chess, C., Dietz, T. and Shannon, M. (1998) 'Who Should Deliberate When?', Human Ecology Forum, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 45-8. http://www.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her51/51chessetal.pdf [Accessed 4 June 2008]
    • Collins, H.M. and Evans, R.J. (2002) 'The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience', Social Studies of Sciences, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 235-296.
    • Collins, H.M. and Evans, R.J. (2007) Rethinking Expertise, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
    • Collins, H.M. and Pinch, T.J. (2005) Dr Golem: How to Think About Medicine, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
    • Council for Science and Technology (2005) 'Policy Through Dialog'. www2.cst.gov.uk/cst/reports/files/policy-through-dialogue/report.pdf [Accessed 15 Feb 2008]
    • Davies, G., Burgess, J., Eames, M., Mayer, S., Staley, K., Stirling, A. and Williamson, S. (2003) Deliberative mapping: appraising options for addressing 'the kidney gap' (Final Report to the Wellcome Trust). http://www.deliberative-mapping.org/project.htm [Accessed 4 June 2008]
    • Deliberative Democracy Consortium (2004) The Deliberative Agency: Opportunities to Deepen Public Participation, Deliberative Democracy Consortium Discussion Paper, March 2004. http://www.deliberativedemocracy.net/resources/library/delib_agency_030404.pdf [Accessed 6 June 2008]
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Funded by projects

  • WT

Cite this article