Promoting deliberation through research: qualitative methods and public engagement with science and technology

Book English OPEN
Kotchetkova, Inna ; Evans, Robert John
  • Publisher: Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University
  • Subject: 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.
  • References (15)
    15 references, page 1 of 2

    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.

  • Metrics
    0
    views in OpenAIRE
    0
    views in local repository
    11
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    Online Research @ Cardiff - IRUS-UK 0 11
Share - Bookmark