Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Science Communication
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 (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Besley, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Toumey, C.
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?

Interpersonal Discussion Following Citizen Engagement About Nanotechnology

What, If Anything, Do They Say?

John C. Besley

University of South Carolina, Columbia, jbesley{at}sc.edu

Victoria L. Kramer

University of South Carolina, Columbia

Qingjiang Yao

University of South Carolina, Columbia

Chris Toumey

University of South Carolina, Columbia

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.

Key Words: public participation • engagement • deliberation • interpersonal discussion • science communication • nanotechnology • Citizens'School

Science Communication, Vol. 30, No. 2, 209-235 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1075547008324670
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]