Interaction between Citizens and Experts in Public Deliberation: A Case Study of Consensus Conferences in Taiwan_

:::

詳目顯示

第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆

/1頁

來源文獻資料
摘要
外文摘要
引文資料

題名：	Interaction between Citizens and Experts in Public Deliberation: A Case Study of Consensus Conferences in Taiwan
書刊名：	East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal
作者：	chen, dung-sheng ／deng, chung-yeh
出版日期：	2007
卷期：	1:1
頁次：	頁77-97
主題關鍵詞：	Consensus conference；Public understanding of science；Public participation；Taiwan；科技政策；審議民主；公民共識會議
原始連結：	連回原系統網址
相關次數：	被引用次數:期刊(7) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0) 排除自我引用:7 共同引用:0 點閱:34

科技相關的公共政策，經常落入科技專家或利益團體的獨斷控制，不利於民眾參與，明顯違背民主政治的基本理念丹麥型的公民共識會議，以審議民主為本，針對有重大爭議的科技政策，提供專家和一般民眾較民主、較平等的對話機制，以聽取民眾於知情理性公開討論下，所形成的共識意見本研究以2004年於台灣舉辦的代理孕母公民共識會議和產前篩檢與檢測公民共識會議為例，深入分析一般民眾和專家之間的互動，民眾科技知能和態度的變化，特別是專家歧見下，民眾如何看待這些意見並形成他們的看法本研究關注專家和一般民眾之間的溝通權力和地位的不對等本研究發現，民眾與專家對話後，不但能分辨專家的歧見和偏見，亦能提出超越專家盲點的見解過程中，民眾對科技的理解，有明顯的轉變，民眾認為這些轉變受專家演講影響最大，而民眾的團體討論也有相當的影響力此外，專家對科學的理解也需要並且也應該有機會被轉變，但事實如何，如何促進，值得後續研究努力。

以文找文

Participatory technology assessment often holds sessions for experts to inform laypersons about scientific controversies. However, few studies examine how these laypersons perceive experts and make policy recommendations. The purpose of this study was to examine interactions between experts and laypersons in two consensus conferences in Taiwan to find illuminating illustrations. Quantitative and qualitative methods were employed to understand the cases. We found that in each of the two consensus conferences, on average the level of laypersons’ science literacy in terms of content was improved and their attitudes toward scientific controversies changed. Expert lectures were perceived as the most important element in influencing participants’ knowledge learning and attitude changes. However, in exchanging views with experts, laypersons could not only identify biases, normative positions, and personal preferences in experts’ seemingly objective talks, but could also raise reflective, worthy viewpoints that were not articulated by the experts. Implications of the findings to research and practices of participatory technology assessment were discussed.

以文找文

期刊論文
1.	Laird, Frank(1993)。Participatory Analysis, Democracy, and Technological Decision Making。Science, Technology & Human Value，18(3)，341-360。
2.	Nowotny, Helga(2003)。Democratising Expertise and Socially Robust Knowledge。Science and Public Policy，30(3)，151-156。
3.	Fiorino, Daniel J.(1990)。Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms。Science, Technology & Human Values，15(2)，226-243。
4.	Kim, Myung-Sik(2002)。Cloning and Deliberation: Korean Consensus Conference。Developing World Bioethics，2(2)，159-172。
5.	Chopyak, J.、Levesque, P.(2002)。Public Participation in Science and Technology Decision Making: Trends for the Future。Technology in Society，24，155-166。
6.	Doble, J.(1995)。Public opinion about issues characterized by technological complexity and scientific uncertainty。Public Understanding of Science，4，95-118。
7.	Fishkin, James S.、Luskin, Robert C.(1999)。The quest for deliberative democracy。The Good Society，9(1)，1-14。
8.	Fung, A.(2003)。Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences。Journal of Political Philosophy，11，1-30。
9.	Greenwood, M. R. C.、Riordan, D. G.(2001)。Civic scientist/civic duty。Science Communication，20，28-40。
10.	Hagendijk, R. P.(2004)。The public understanding of science and public participation in regulated worlds。Minerva，42，41-59。
11.	Hamlett, P. W.(2003)。Technology theory and deliberative。Science, Technology, and Human Values，28，112-140。
12.	Hennen, L.(1999)。Participatory technology assessment: A response to technical modernity?。Science and Public Policy，26(5)，303-312。
13.	Huijer, M.(2003)。Reconsidering democracy: History of the human genome project。Science Communication，24，479-502。
14.	Jasanoff, S.(2003)。(No?) accounting for expertise。Science and Public Policy，30(3)，157-162。
15.	Joss, S.、Durant, J.(1995)。The UK national consensus conference on plant biotechnology。Public Understanding of Science，4，195-204。
16.	Lenaghan, J.(1999)。Involving the public in rationing decisions: The experience of citizens juries。Health Policy，49，45-61。
17.	Mendelberg, T.(2002)。The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence。Political Decision Making, Deliberation and Participation，6，151-193。
18.	Montpetit, E.、Scala, F.、Fortier, I.(2004)。The paradox of deliberative democracy: The National Action Committee on the Status of Women and Canada's policy on reproductive technology。Policy Sciences，37，137-157。
19.	Nishizawa, M.(2005)。Citizen deliberations on science and technology and their social environments: Case study on the Japanese consensus conference on GM crops。Science and Public Policy，32，479-489。
20.	Otway, H.、Wynne, B.(1989)。Risk communication: Paradigm and paradox。Risk Analysis，9(2)，141-145。
21.	Rayner, S.(2003)。Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making。Science and Public Policy，30(3)，163-171。
22.	Salomon, J.-J.(2000)。Science, technology and democracy。Minerva，38，33-51。
23.	Thurston, W. E.、MacKean, G.、Vollman, A.、Casebeer, A.、Weber, M.、Maloff, B.(2005)。Public participation in regional health policy: A theoretical framework。Health Policy，73，237-252。
24.	Zurita, L.(2006)。Consensus conference method in environmental issues: Relevance and strengths。Land Use Policy，23，18-25。
25.	Clark, F.、Illman, D.(2001)。Dimensions of civic science: Introductory essay。Science Communication，23(1)，5-27。
26.	Einsiedel, E. F.、Eastlick, D. L.(2000)。Consensus Conferences as Deliberative Democracy。Science Communication，21(4)，323-343。
27.	Einsiedel, Edna F.、Jelsoe, Erling、Breck, Thomas(2001)。Publics at the Technology Table: The Consensus Conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia。Public Understanding of Science，10(1)，83-98。
28.	Guston, David H.(1999)。Evaluating the First U.S. Consensus Conference: The Impacts of Citizen's Panel on Telecommunication and the Future of Democracy。Science, Technology and Human Values，24(4)，451-482。
29.	Joss, S.(1998)。Danish consensus conference as a model of participatory technology assessment: An impact study of consensus conference on Danish parliament and Danish public debate。Science and Public Policy，25(1)，2-22。
30.	Lee, C. J.、Scheufele, D. A.、Lewenstein, B. V.(2005)。Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public support for nanotechnology。Science Communication，27(2)，240-267。
31.	Nelkin, Dorothy、Pollak, Michael(197908)。Public Participation in Technological Decisions: Reality or Grand Illusion?。Technological Review，9，55-64。
32.	Perhac, Ralph Jr.(1998)。Comparative Risk Assessment: Where Does the Public Fit In?。Science, Technology & Human Value，23(2)，221-241。
33.	Weigold, M. F.(2001)。Communicating science: A review of the literature。Science Communication，23(2)，164-193。
34.	Winner, Langdon(1993)。Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology。Science, Technology, & Human Values，18(3)，362-378。

會議論文
1.	Chen, D.-S.、Lin, K.(2004)。The prospect of deliberative democracy in Taiwan。The international symposium on Asia’s new democracies: Taiwan, the Philippines and South Korea compared。Taipei：Academia Sinica。

圖書
1.	Renn, O.、Webler, T.、Wiedemann, P.(1995)。Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse。London, UK：Kluwer Academic Publishers。
2.	Fishkin, James S.(1995)。The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy。Yale University Press。
3.	Bohman, James(1996)。Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy。MIT Press。
4.	Gutmann, Amy、Thompson, Danis(1996)。Democracy and Disagreement。Belknap Press of Harvard University Press。
5.	Gastil, John、Levine, Peter(2005)。The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century。Jossey-Bass。
6.	Beck, Ulrich、Ritter, Mark(1992)。Risk Society。London：Sage。

圖書論文
1.	Cohen, Joshua(1996)。Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy。Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political。Princeton, New Jersey：Princeton University Press。
2.	Benhabib, S.(1996)。Toward a deliberative mode of democratic legitimacy。Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundary of the political。Princeton：Princeton University Press。
3.	Cohen, J.(1999)。Deliberation and democratic legitimacy。Deliberative democracy。Cambridge, MA：MIT Press。
4.	Cohen, Joshua、Rogers, Joel(2003)。Power and reason。Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance。London：Verso。
5.	Elster, J.(1989)。The market and the forum: Three varieties of political theory。Foundations of social choice theory。Cambridge：Cambridge University Press。
6.	Fischer, F.(2003)。Citizens and experts: Democratizing policy deliberation。Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices。Oxford：Oxford University Press。
7.	Mansbridge, J.(2003)。Practice-thought-practice。Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance。London：Verso。
8.	Otway, H.(1992)。Public wisdom, expert fallibility: Toward a contextual theory of risk。Social theories of risk。Westport：Praeger。
9.	Pinch, T.、Bijker, W. E.(1987)。The social construction of facts and artifacts。The social construction of technological systems。Cambridge：MIT Press。
10.	Smith, G.(2000)。Toward deliberative institutions。Democratic innovation。New York：Routledge。
11.	Webler, T.、Renn, O.(1995)。A brief primer on participation: Philosophy and practice。Fairness and competence in citizen participation。London：Kluwer Academic Publishers。
12.	Wynne, B.(1995)。Public understanding of science。Handbook of science and technology studies。Sage Publications。
13.	Young, I. M.(2000)。Inclusive political communication。Inclusion and democracy。Oxford：Oxford University Press。
14.	Hendriks, C. M.(2005)。Consensus conferences and planning cells: Lay citizen deliberations。The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the 21th century。San Francisco：Jossey-Bass。
15.	Wynne, Brian(1992)。Risk and Social Learning: Reification to Engagement。Social Theories of Risk。Praeger。

推文
推薦
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
轉寄

top

:::

相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱

1.	既是研究者，也是實作者：打造審議民主發展重鎮
2.	科技渴望社會：容納、群學與跨域實踐
3.	Knowing the Great Plains Weather: Field Life and Lay Participation on the American Frontier during the Railroad Era
4.	審議制度與聽證制度關係初探--以南鐵東移案與內政部舉行聽證作業要點為例
5.	土地使用審議組織之委託代理關係分析--以內政部區域計畫委員會為例
6.	社群治理與社會創新 [演講稿]
7.	知情公民在公共治理決策程序的功能分析
8.	公共政策中的專家政治與民主參與：以高雄「跨港纜車」公民共識會議為例
9.	審議民主、科技決策與公共討論

無相關博士論文

無相關書籍

無相關著作

無相關點閱

QR Code

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

詳目顯示

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫