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 COMMUNICATION-

CiteScore

13.50

自引率

4.40%

发文量

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.