Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Social Studies of Science
This Article
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
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 Evans, R.
Right arrow Articles by Plows, A.
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?

Listening Without Prejudice?

Re-discovering the Value of the Disinterested Citizen

Robert Evans

Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3WT, UK; fax: +44 29 2987 4175, EvansRJ1{at}Cardiff.ac.uk

Alexandra Plows

6 Museum Place, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3BG, UK; fax: +44 29 2987 0024, PlowsA{at}Cardiff.ac.uk

Public participation in technological decision-making is increasingly seen as de rigueur, but the limits and purpose of such participation remain open to debate. In this paper we explore the tension between different rationales for widening participation and examine their implications for its practice. Taking debates about medical genomics in the UK as an illustrative example, we argue that more heterogeneous participation and debate have the potential to improve the scrutiny and accountability of science within representative democracies. In doing so we also argue that it is necessary to replace the language of `lay expertise' with a more systematic and rigorous treatment of the expertise or its absence that characterizes different participants. Drawing on the theoretical work of Collins & Evans (2002), we distinguish between those processes where expert knowledge is required and debate is conducted within the public domain, rather than by the public itself, and those where the views of non-expert lay citizens are needed and valued. The effect of adopting this approach is to permit a more inclusive treatment of the `technical' while also providing a positive role for non-expert citizens in the democratic control and oversight of science.

Key Words: democratizing science • expertise • public engagement with science and technology • public participation

Social Studies of Science, Vol. 37, No. 6, 827-853 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0306312707076602


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
Qualitative ResearchHome page
R. Evans and I. Kotchetkova
Qualitative research and deliberative methods: promise or peril?
Qualitative Research, November 1, 2009; 9(5): 625 - 643.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Bulletin of Science Technology SocietyHome page
M. C. Powell and M. Colin
Participatory Paradoxes: Facilitating Citizen Engagement in Science and Technology From the Top-Down?
Bulletin of Science Technology Society, August 1, 2009; 29(4): 325 - 342.
[Abstract] [PDF]