Tom Horlick-Jones is an independent researcher and consultant, currently based at Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University. He was team leader of the debate evaluation project.
John Walls is a Senior Research Associate in the School of Environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia.
Gene Rowe is Head of Consumer Science at the Institute of Food Research in Norwich.
Nick Pidgeon is Professor of Applied Psychology in the School of Psychology at Cardiff University.
Wouter Poortinga is an RCUK Academic Fellow in health and risk communication in the Welsh School of Architecture at Cardiff University.
Graham Murdock is Reader in the Sociology of Culture at Loughborough University.
Tim O´Riordan is Emeritus Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia.
This book tells the story of an unprecedented experiment in public participation: the government-sponsored debate on the possible commercialization of `GM´ crops in the UK. Giving a unique and systematic account of the debate process, this revealing volume sets it within its political and intellectual contexts, and examines the practical implications for future public engagement initiatives.
The authors, an experienced team of researchers, produce a conceptually-informed and empirically-based evaluation of the debate, drawing upon detailed observation of both public and behind-the-scenes aspects of the process, the views of participants in debate events, a major MORI-administered survey of public views, and details of media coverage.
With innovative methodological work on the evaluation of public engagement and deliberative processes, the authors analyze the design, implementation and effectiveness of the debate process, and provide a critique of its official findings.
The book will undoubtedly be of interest to a wide readership, and will be an invaluable resource for researchers, policy-makers and students concerned with cross-disciplinary aspects of risk, decision-making, public engagement, and governance of technology.
|
A unique evaluation of the 2003 British public debate about GM crops, by an experienced team of researchers, setting the debate process within its political and intellectual contexts
An empirically-based account of the debate, based on systematic collection and analysis of data, and including observation of both public and behind-the-scenes aspects, the views of participants in debate events, a detailed examination of public views at the time of the debate based on a major MORI-administered survey, and media coverage of the debate
A critique of the official findings of the debate, and an examination of the practical implications of the debate for the future
Innovative methodological work on the evaluation of public engagement and deliberative processes
Of interest to an international cross-disciplinary readership of researchers, policy-makers and students concerned with risk, decision-making, public engagement and technology governance
1. The Origins of the Debate 2. Our Approach to Evaluating the Debate 3. The Unfolding of the Debate and the Implementation of the Evaluation Exercise 4. Process Issues 5. The Issue of Representativeness 6. Participants´ Evaluation Criteria 7. The Management and Translation of Knowledge 8. Other Representations of the Debate 9. Conclusions
Giving a unique and systematic account of the debate process, this revealing volume sets the government-sponsored debate on the possible commercialization of `GM´ crops in the UK within its political and intellectual contexts.
Tells the story of an unprecedented experiment in public participation: the government-sponsored debate on the possible commercialization of 'GM' crops in the UK. Giving an account of the debate process, this volume sets it within its political and intellectual contexts, and examines the practical implications for public engagement initiatives.
Über den Autor
Tom Horlick-Jones is an independent researcher and consultant, currently based at Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University. He was team leader of the debate evaluation project.
John Walls is a Senior Research Associate in the School of Environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia.
Gene Rowe is Head of Consumer Science at the Institute of Food Research in Norwich.
Nick Pidgeon is Professor of Applied Psychology in the School of Psychology at Cardiff University.
Wouter Poortinga is an RCUK Academic Fellow in health and risk communication in the Welsh School of Architecture at Cardiff University.
Graham Murdock is Reader in the Sociology of Culture at Loughborough University.
Tim O'Riordan is Emeritus Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia.
Inhaltsverzeichnis
1. The Origins of the Debate 2. Our Approach to Evaluating the Debate 3. The Unfolding of the Debate and the Implementation of the Evaluation Exercise 4. Process Issues 5. The Issue of Representativeness 6. Participants' Evaluation Criteria 7. The Management and Translation of Knowledge 8. Other Representations of the Debate 9. Conclusions
