Latest News

Programme references & citations

[Return to main menu]

December 2014

Cabinet office
Andy Williamson
Big Data and the Implications for Government
Legal Information Management / Volume 14 / Issue 04 / December 2014, pp 253-257
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage
=online&aid=9461189&fileId=S1472669614000553
(Abstract only)
Google summary is to one of the SI papers “Sciencewise (2013) described public understanding as 'generally low' and that
open data was seen as 'an abstract issue with unclear benefits to everyday life'”
, where there
“may also be a lack of clarity for members of the public over exactly what is meant by 'open'"

R Munck, L McIlrath, B Hall, R Tandon
Higher Education and Community-Based Research: Creating a Global Vision (Book)
Refers to setting up of Sciencewise under heading of “Investments in science and society”

J Lassinantti
Public Sector Open Data
http://pure.ltu.se/portal/files/100681956/Josefin_Lassinantti.pdf
Licentiate thesis, Lulea University of Technology
Refers to Davies, T. 2013, "Transparency and open data" in Mapping the new terrain: Public dialogue on science and technology, eds. S. Burall & T. Hughes, Sciencewise

Jason Chilvers
Expertise, professionalization and reflexivity in mediating participatory democratic practices: Paradoxes, tensions and possibilities
Paper for presentation to the INM Symposium ‘Developing Expertise in the Design of Participatory Tools: Professionalization and Diversification of the Public Participation Field’, IPSA / AISP 23rd World Congress, Montreal, 21-22 July, 2014
http://paperroom.ipsa.org/papers/paper_42033.pdf NB Draft
Numerous references to Sciencewise. Start of abstract
“This paper critically analyses the emergence of expertise on, and the professionalization of, public participation in western democracies, with specific reference to UK developments. It draws on two qualitative studies into the emergence of ‘public dialogue’ on science and environmental issues in Britain spanning the past decade. These studies involved practitioners in mapping out and reflecting on the emergence of public dialogue expertise during early network development in 2001-2003 and when attempts at professionalization had matured in 2009-2011, latterly centred around a Government sponsored expert centre on public dialogue called Sciencewise.”

A Stirling
Towards innovation democracy (Chapter in the CSA report on innovation and risk)
Fully referenced version is at http://steps-centre.org/wp-content/uploads/stirling-towards-innovation-democracy.pdf
Refers to “Best of” and “Which publics, when”

Colleen M. Grogan, “Public Engagement and the Importance of Content, Purpose, and Timing”, Synthetic Future: Can We Create What We Want Out of Synthetic Biology?, special report, Hastings Center Report 44, no. 6 (2014): S40-S42. DOI: 10.1002/hast.399
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.399/abstract;jsessionid=
FE8D298AABDB0CCF76172782D5622396.f04t04?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=
&userIsAuthenticated=false

Abstract only. Google summary “As the United Kingdom's Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre points out, public dialogue is not intended to 'seek endorsement of decisions that have already been made.'[8] Thus, deliberative forums should look back intentionally by providing data about what has ...”

M Entradas
'Experimenting with distributed approaches – Case study: A ‘national-level’ distributed dialogue on bioenergy'
Public Understanding of Science November 16, 2014 0963662514556207
This is by the researcher on the BBSRC distributed bioenergy dialogue.

Nick Pidgeon et al
Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy
www.pnas.org/content/111/Supplement_4/13606.short
Refers to Sciencewise programme and also to its part support for My2050.

E Andersson
Engagement in health: roles for the public and patients
www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/257513/
Smart-governance-for-health-and-well-being-the-evidence.pdf?ua=1#page=44

General reference to Sciencewise programme

R Watermeyer
'The inescapability of knowing and inability to not know in the digital society'.
Chapter 12 in “The right to know and the right not to know: generic privacy and responsibility" edited by Ruth Chadwick, Mairi Levitt and Darren Shickle. 2nd Edition
Cambridge bioethics and law.
Two general references to the Sciencewise programme and one to evaluation of the Big Energy Shift

Sujatha Raman* & Alison Mohr
A Social Licence for Science: Capturing the Public or Co-Constructing Research?
Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy
Volume 28, Issue 3-4, 2014. Special Issue: Social Licence to Operate
See www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691728.2014.922642#.VJgkwnpByA
Abstract refers to stem cell dialogue

Paul Bardos et al
Nanoremediation and International Environmental Restoration Markets
See www.r3environmental.co.uk/downloadsnew/
Chlor798BardosPaper.pdf
Refers to the EA Nanodialogue

G Skinner, JN Shah
Understanding public attitudes to science
Significance. Volume 11, Issue 3,  pages 14–18, July 2014
See http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2014.00748.x/abstract?
deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

Based on PAS14 – refers to Sciencewise

A Irwin
'Risk, science and public communication'
Chapter 12 in: Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology, 2nd edn. Edited by Massimiano Bucchi and Brian Trench
See http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ArHcAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=
PA160&dq=sciencewise&ots=2AfHuqjTXJ&sig=
Rzw0P6qADyNbzsR2hH_W0zEsYKY#v=onepage&q=sciencewise&f=false

Refers to Sciencewise website “offers information about a host of current and previous dialogue projects …”

Amy Pollard
Being part of a deliberative process can change citizen views and build legitimacy, but the key to impact comes from the public themselves
See http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/57651/1/democraticaudit.com-Being_part_of_a_deliberative_process_can_change_citizen_views_and_
build_legitimacy_but_the_key_to_imp.pdf

Refers to “Changing hats” thought leadership piece

Cotton, J., Orr, P., Ross, C., Steel, M., Forrest, S., and Brooks, K. (2014) 'What Does Flood Risk Mean? Innovation in Risk Communications'. Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk: pp. 2754-2764. doi: 10.1061/9780784413609.278
See http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784413609.278
Based on initial findings from flood risk communications project.

R Watermeyer and G Rowe
The Second VOICES Evaluation Report Evaluation of the post-Focus Group activities
See www.voicesforinnovation.eu/files/VOICES_2nd_Evaluation_
Report_Final.pdf

Includes “Stakeholders were unanimous in recommending the project methodology as one of the core aspects underpinning the success of VOICES. The role of science centres/museums as spaces for, and facilitators of, the deliberative workshops was also in our opinion (as seasoned observers of public dialogue initiatives) a distinguishing aspect deserving of consideration by those sponsoring public engagement initiatives. It is worth noting that, in our own conversations with Sciencewise (the UK organization for public dialogue in emerging and controversial science and technology for policy purposes) we have advocated for the increased visibility and permanence of professional science communicators (working within science centres/museums), in moderating public participation in science policy deliberations.”