Latest News

Read our latest Digest

Contact Us

23 May 2014

Public and Stakeholder Dialogue: every journey begins with a single step

Filed under: — Posted by Nanasha @ 3:11pm

By Suzannah Lansdell, Dialogue and Engagement Specialist, Sciencewise

test tubeI was the Sciencewise Dialogue and Engagement Specialist working on the Openness in Animal Research public dialogue. The public dialogue fed into the development of the draft Concordat which was consulted on last autumn and the final Concordat was recently launched.

From the outset it was recognised the dialogue would have challenges – the timing and resourcing was tight, the subject matter challenging and the sector one that has been largely behind closed doors for many years.  The risks were, in short, quite high.

14 March 2014

Confessions from the Head of Public Dialogue

Filed under: — Posted by Nanasha @ 12:07pm

By Simon Burall, Head of Dialogue for Sciencewise

Siman BurrallThis is the second post in a series of reflective pieces about Sciencewise’s Citizen Group. The posts are exploring how well the Group has played its role in bringing citizen perspectives into the heart of the programme. In the first post in the series, Confessions of a Citizen Group Member, Mark Symmonds gives a very honest account about how it worked from his perspective.

This post takes the perspective of one of the ‘commissioners’ of the Group.

3 March 2014

Confessions of a Citizen Group member

Filed under: — Posted by Nanasha @ 2:46pm

By Mark Symonds, Sciencewise Citizen Group member

============================================================

20 February 2014

Outside the Goldfish Bowl: Facing up to the Challenges of Digital Engagement (PART 2)

Filed under: — Posted by Nanasha @ 2:52pm

By Dr Eric Jensen, Associate Professor (Senior Lecturer), University of Warwick
(@JensenWarwick, e.jensen@warwick.ac.uk)

New goldfish bowlIn this blog post, I continue to engage with the report 'In the goldfish bowl: science and technology policy dialogues in a digital world' (authors: Susie Latta, Charlotte Mulcare and Anthony Zacharzewski), which was commissioned by Sciencewise and published in 2013. This is part 2 of my critical review of this report. This part of my review focuses on the report’s conclusions about the benefits and limitations of digital methods for public dialogue.

11 February 2014

Response to Eric Jensen's review of the Goldfish Bowl

Filed under: — Posted by Nanasha @ 12:32pm

By Susie Latta and Charlotte Mulcare from the Democratic Society

Blog picWe thank Dr. Jensen for interesting and thorough review our report, and hope that our responses will prove useful in extending the debate further.

Perhaps the most important point to make is that this report was never intended to provide an academic sociological report: Dr. Jensen correctly makes the observation that our arguments are forward looking and do not provide an academic paper focused on sociology. This was not the intention of our article, which was specific to the future of engagement in science policy, and how the internet can support it. Hence our evidence comes from political not academic sources, MORI polls and comprehensive reports collating research rather than single publications. Bearing this scope in mind, we believe that many of the omissions he mentions, although interesting points worthy of research, would not have been appropriate to cover given our remit.

7 February 2014

Public views of the great eight technologies

Filed under: — Posted by Nanasha @ 9:22am

By Monica Lobo, Science and Society manager, British Science Association

circuit-boards-design3Investment in technologies has the potential to contribute to the UK’s economic growth. But what does the public think?

‘The great eight’

In November 2012, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, described science as a driver of the UK economy. At his speech at the Royal Society he challenged the scientific community of Britain to lead the world in what are now known as ‘the eight great technologies’. These are:

30 January 2014

Outside the Goldfish Bowl: facing up to the challenges of digital engagement (PART 1)

Filed under: — Posted by Nanasha @ 1:56pm

By Dr Eric Jensen, Associate Professor (Senior Lecturer), University of Warwick
(@JensenWarwick, e.jensen@warwick.ac.uk)

New goldfish bowlThis set of blog posts comprise a review and critique of the Sciencewise-commissioned report entitled: 'In the goldfish bowl: science and technology policy dialogues in a digital world' (authors: Susie Latta, Charlotte Mulcare and Anthony Zacharzewski), published in 2013. While the authors make some useful points, they exaggerate the ubiquity of digital technology, overstate the benefits of adopting digital dialogue approaches and understate the potential downsides. I argue for an understanding of the role of online technologies for dialogue in contemporary societies that is better grounded in sociological research.

20 January 2014

The role of social media in public dialogue and policy

Filed under: — Posted by Nanasha @ 3:56pm

I am an Associate Professor (Senior Lecturer) in the Department of Sociology at the University of Warwick. Most of my published research is in the fields of media sociology, public engagement and impact evaluation methodology. I lead a Master’s module on ‘Researching Science, Media and Public Policy’, an undergraduate module on Media Sociology and I convene the department’s Social Research Methods module. For further details of my recent relevant research projects, please see: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/staff/academicstaff/jensen/dialogue/#About

By Dr Eric Jensen, Associate Professor (Senior Lecturer), University of Warwick
(@JensenWarwick, e.jensen@warwick.ac.uk)

Social-Media-IconsAs social media expand, policy makers and practitioners are increasingly considering what the role of platforms such as Twitter and Facebook should be in informing public policy. There are important limitations, as well as opportunities, involved in using such media as sites for dialogue and these are not well understood. Using social media to gain insights about public views and to host public dialogue offers the potential for involving a much larger number of participants. It also enables on-going participation from individuals over time, and even the possibility of unobtrusive consultation by drawing upon conversations that are already taking place online. In all these cases, the cost barrier for hosting public dialogues or consulting public views would be substantially lowered, when compared to the main alternative approach: face-to-face events with small numbers of people in one location.

17 January 2014

What are the important cross-cutting policy issues for public deliberation?

Filed under: — Posted by Nanasha @ 9:21am

By Roland Jackson, Sciencewise Executive Chair (Twitter: @Roland_Jackson)

whitehallActually, the question I want to ask is slightly narrower than that. It comes at the end.

Sciencewise aims to bring the ‘public voice’ into policy and decision-making on issues involving science and technology. It seeks to do this in a deliberative manner, and in a way which contributes to better policy, reflecting the understanding and involvement of different publics.

15 January 2014

What is ‘innovation’ when it comes to dialogue?

Filed under: — Posted by Nanasha @ 12:30pm

By Andrew Acland, Dialogue and Engagement Specialist, Sciencewise

New PictureAs a Sciencewise Dialogue and Engagement Specialist (DES), I spend a lot of my time discussing possible dialogue methodologies with government clients and commercial contractors and writing Invitations To Tender (ITTs) for dialogue projects.

13 4 5 6 720