通过共识会议的参与式科学传播:对德国基因组编辑共识会议的合法性评估

IF 4.6 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Science Communication Pub Date : 2022-10-01 DOI:10.1177/10755470221133130
L. Dendler
{"title":"通过共识会议的参与式科学传播:对德国基因组编辑共识会议的合法性评估","authors":"L. Dendler","doi":"10.1177/10755470221133130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Considering growing deliberative turns within and beyond science communication coupled with calls for their systematic evaluations, this paper presents a legitimacy framework to analyze a recent consensus conference on the topic of genome editing. Drawing upon participant surveys (PSs) and interviews, it confirms difficulties of this deliberative method in achieving inclusive input from across society as well as conflicts between deliberative ideals, empirical communication practice, and ensuring impact on policy making. The case calls for more experimentation with hybrid online/offline approaches while staying aware of unequally distributed deliberation abilities and the need for unifying outputs.","PeriodicalId":47828,"journal":{"name":"Science Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Participatory Science Communication Through Consensus Conferences: Legitimacy Evaluations of a German Consensus Conference on Genome Editing\",\"authors\":\"L. Dendler\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10755470221133130\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Considering growing deliberative turns within and beyond science communication coupled with calls for their systematic evaluations, this paper presents a legitimacy framework to analyze a recent consensus conference on the topic of genome editing. Drawing upon participant surveys (PSs) and interviews, it confirms difficulties of this deliberative method in achieving inclusive input from across society as well as conflicts between deliberative ideals, empirical communication practice, and ensuring impact on policy making. The case calls for more experimentation with hybrid online/offline approaches while staying aware of unequally distributed deliberation abilities and the need for unifying outputs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science Communication\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470221133130\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470221133130","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

考虑到科学传播内外越来越多的审议转向以及对其系统评估的呼吁,本文提出了一个合法性框架来分析最近关于基因组编辑主题的共识会议。根据参与者调查和访谈,本文证实了这种协商方法在实现全社会包容性投入方面的困难,以及协商理想、经验沟通实践和确保对政策制定的影响之间的冲突。该案例呼吁对在线/离线混合方法进行更多实验,同时保持对不均匀分布的审议能力和统一输出的需求的认识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Participatory Science Communication Through Consensus Conferences: Legitimacy Evaluations of a German Consensus Conference on Genome Editing
Considering growing deliberative turns within and beyond science communication coupled with calls for their systematic evaluations, this paper presents a legitimacy framework to analyze a recent consensus conference on the topic of genome editing. Drawing upon participant surveys (PSs) and interviews, it confirms difficulties of this deliberative method in achieving inclusive input from across society as well as conflicts between deliberative ideals, empirical communication practice, and ensuring impact on policy making. The case calls for more experimentation with hybrid online/offline approaches while staying aware of unequally distributed deliberation abilities and the need for unifying outputs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Science Communication
Science Communication COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
4.40%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Science Communication is a prestigious journal that focuses on communication research. It is recognized globally for publishing top-quality manuscripts that demonstrate excellent theoretical frameworks and robust methodology. Our journal embraces a broad definition of science, encompassing not only the natural and physical sciences but also social science, technology, environment, engineering, and health. Regardless of the scientific area, effective communication is always the focal point of our investigations. Apart from theoretical and methodological rigor, we place great emphasis on the practical implications of scientific communication. Therefore, we expect all submitted manuscripts to address the real-world applications and significance of their research, alongside theoretical considerations. In summary, Science Communication is an internationally renowned journal dedicated to bridging the gap between science and society. By promoting effective communication in various scientific domains, we strive to engage readers with intriguing research that has tangible implications for the world around us.
期刊最新文献
Assessing the Outputs, Outcomes, and Impacts of Science Communication: A Quantitative Content Analysis of 128 Science Communication Projects. Science Communication Spaces as “Pockets of Belonging”: Inviting in a Plurality of Science Identities for Scientists-in-Training Storytelling in Science Film: Narrative Engagement Relates to Greater Knowledge, Interest, and Identification With Science Video-Based Group-Values Affirmation Reduces Defensive Responses to Risk Messages Beyond Deliberation: Alternative Forms of Public (Dis)engagement With Science
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1