Doing Dialogue
Genre and Flexibility in Public Engagement with Science
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12205373 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Sarah R Davies (0000-0002-2113-9103, Durham University Science Site, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2009 |
| Volume | 18 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 397-416 |
| Publication date | 2009-10-20 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Science as Culture (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0950-5431 • E-ISSN: 1470-1189 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/09505430902870591 |
| OpenAlex | W2047976608 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 13 |
| References cited | 46 |
Public engagement with science' is an increasingly important but contested practice. In this study of London's Dana Centre I look at dialogue events carried out there as a case study of public engagement, performing a detailed analysis in order to examine their nature and practice. The analysis suggests that event framings (as found in the discourse of events) are multiple, varying from lecture to open debate. Furthermore the genre of events is flexible, with participant involvement organised through the use of genres derived from education, talkshows and news interviewing as well as more traditional genres such as lectures. While it seems there is flexibility in the practice of these informal dialogue events, they are, however, not open to reinvention by all participants equally. The fluidity of practice observed may be due to the newness of these kinds of processes in most people's experiences. We are therefore observing, on the ground, the traces of contrasting discourses of the right relationship between science and society
Epistemology · Event (particle physics · Flexibility (engineering · Interview · Management · Media studies · Order (exchange · Political science · Public engagement · Public relations · Sociology · Typology · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Discourse Analysis in Language Studies · Rhetoric and Communication Studies
Knowing and Loving
Analyzing interdiscursivity in legal genres
Energy Futures
Influence in science dialogue
The rules of engagement
Mapping the hinterland
Engaging With Strangers and Brief Encounters
On the Shoulders of Idiots
Competing Agendas in Upstream Engagement Meetings Between Celiac Disease Experts and Patients
Science in Culture
Science Centers and Public Participation
Public Engagement for Informing Science and Technology Policy
On New Forms of Science Communication and Communication in Science
Risk Society
Talk on television
Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science – Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?
Scenario workshops and consensus conferences
Foundations in sociolinguistics
Hijacking the Fairy Tale
Stimulating authentic community involvement in biotechnology policy in Australia
Science shops
Deliberative mapping
Experts on public trial
Risk Society
Consulting citizens
Misunderstanding Science
The Role of Lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge
The tabloid talkshow as a quasi-conversational type of face-to-face interaction
Deliberating Risks Under Uncertainty
Learning to Generate Dialogue
Strengths of Public Dialogue on Science‐related Issues
Towards Analytic‐deliberative Forms of Risk Governance in the UK? Reflecting on Learning in Radioactive Waste
Challenging the ‘view from nowhere’
Diverging Convergences
Deploying Identity for Democratic Ends on Jan Publiek– A Flemish Television Talk Show
Power in Discourse
Creating Public Alienation
Shifting Subject Positions
The Politics of Talk
Generating Applause
Talk on Television
Questioning Presidents
Risk society
Interpreting Qualitative Data
Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy
Engaging the Public in Technology Policy
Report
A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms
Processes of Inclusion, Cultures of Calculation, Structures of Power
Deliberating Competence
Deliberations about deliberative methods
The limits of questioning
| Unique citing works | 13 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,87 |
| Citation span | 2011 - 2020 (10) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 13 |