Participatory versus analytic approaches for understanding risk perceptions: a comparison of three case studies from the field of biotechnology

References

• Anderson, L. S., H. G. Bell, M. Gilbert, J. E. Davidson, C. Winter, M. J. Barratt, B. Win, et al. 2017. “Using Social Listening Data to Monitor Misuse and Nonmedical Use of Bupropion: A Content Analysis.” JMIR Public Health and Surveillance 3 (1): e6. doi:10.2196/publichealth.6174.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Avritzer, Leonardo. 2002. Democracy and the Public Space in Latin America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bächtiger, André, Maija Setälä, and Kimmo Grönlund. 2014. “Towards a New Era of Deliberative Mini-Publics.” In Deliberative Mini-Publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process, edited by K. Grönöund, A. Bächtiger and M. Setälä, 225–246. Colchester: ECRP Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barker, G. C., C. Bayley, A. Cassidy, S. French, A. Hart, P. K. Malakar, J. Maule, M. Petkov, and R. Shepherd. 2010. “Can a Participatory Approach Contribute to Food Chain Risk Analysis?” Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis 30 (5): 766–781. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01385.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beauvais, Edana, and Mark E. Warren. 2019. “What Can Deliberative Mini-Publics Contribute to Democratic Systems?” European Journal of Political Research 58 (3): 893–914. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, Simon, Stephen Morse, and Rupesh A. Shah. 2012. “Understanding Stakeholder Participation in Research as Part of Sustainable Development.” Journal of Environmental Management 101: 13–22. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bieberstein, Andrea, and Jutta Roosen. 2015. “Gender Differences in the Meanings Associated with Food Hazards: A Means-End Chain Analysis.” Food Quality and Preference 42: 165–176. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.11.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blok, Anders. 2007. “Experts on Public Trial: On Democratizing Expertise through a Danish Consensus Conference.” Public Understanding of Science 16 (2): 163–182. doi:10.1177/0963662507062469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, John, and Albert Hunter. 1989. Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Bruce, Ann, and Donald Bruce. 2019. “Genome Editing and Responsible Innovation, Can They Be Reconciled?” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 32 (5–6): 769–788. doi:10.1007/s10806-019-09789-w.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryson, John M., Kathryn S. Quick, Carissa Schively Slotterback, and Barbara C. Crosby. 2013. “Designing Public Participation Processes.” Public Administration Review 73 (1): 23–34. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02678.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR). 2017. “Durchführung von Fokusgruppen zur Wahrnehmung des Genome Editings (CRISPR/Cas9).” Accessed 01/31/2023. https://mobil.bfr.bund.de/cm/350/durchfuehrung-von-fokusgruppen-zur-wahrnehmung-des-genome-editings-crispr-cas9.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR). 2019a. “The BfR consumer conference: “Genome editing in the field of nutrition and human health” starts on 10 August 2019.” Accessed 01/31/2023. https://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/349/the-bfr-genome-editing-in-the-field-of-nutrition-and-human-health-consumer-conference-starts-on-10th-august-2019.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR). 2019b. “Conclusion of the BfR consumer conference on genome editing: Lots of potential, but clear rules required [Press release].” Accessed 01/31/2023. https://www.bfr.bund.de/en/press_information/2019/35/conclusion_of_the_bfr_consumer_conference_on_genome_editing__lots_of_potential__but_clear_rules_required-242324.html.
   Google Scholar
• Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR). 2019c. “Die häufigsten Fragen (FAQ) zur BfR-Verbraucherkonferenz Genome Editing.” Accessed 01/31/2023. https://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/343/die-haeufigsten-fragen-zur-bfr-verbraucherkonferenz-genome-editing-2019-07-15.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Carrick, Jayne, Derek Bell, Clare Fitzsimmons, Tim Gray, and Gavin Stewart. 2022. “Principles and Practical Criteria for Effective Participatory Environmental Planning and Decision-Making.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1–24. doi:10.1080/09640568.2022.2086857.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter, Lucy, and Aditi Mankad. 2021. “The Promises and Realities of Integration in Synthetic Biology: A View from Social Science.” Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 8. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2020.622221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, Simone. 2022. “Theorizing Deliberation.” In Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy, edited by Selen A. Ercan, Hans Asenbaum, Nicole Curato and Ricardo Mendonça, 27–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chess, Caron, and Kristen Purcell. 1999. “Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works?.” Environmental Science & Technology 33 (16): 2685–2692. doi:10.1021/es980500g.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, Jean L., and Andrew Arato. 1992. Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Cornwall, Andrea, and Vera Schatten Coelho. 2007. “Spaces for Change? The Politics of Citizen Participation in New Democratic Arenas.” In Spaces for Change? The Politics of Citizen Participation in New Democratic Arenas, edited by Andrea Cornwall and Vera Schatten Coelho, 1–32. London: Zed Books.
   Google Scholar
• Dean, Rikki, Felix Hoffmann, Brigitte Geissel, Stefan Jung, and Bruno Wipfler. 2022. “Citizen Deliberation in Germany: Lessons from the ‘Bürgerrat Demokratie.” German Politics, 1–25. doi:10.1080/09644008.2022.2088732.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dendler, Leonie, and Gaby-Fleur Böl. 2021. “Increasing Engagement in Regulatory Science: Reflections from the Field of Risk Assessment.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 46 (4): 719–754. doi:10.1177/0162243920944499.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dendler, Leonie. 2014. “Sustainability Meta Labelling: An Effective Measure to Facilitate More Sustainable Consumption and Production?” Journal of Cleaner Production 63: 74–83. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.037.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dendler, Leonie. 2022. “Participatory Science Communication through Consensus Conferences: Legitimacy Evaluations of a German Consensus Conference on Genome Editing.” Science Communication 44 (5): 621–655. doi:10.1177/10755470221133130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dosman, Donna M., Wiktor L. Adamowicz, and Steve E. Hrudey. 2001. “Socioeconomic Determinants of Health- and Food Safety-Related Risk Perceptions.” Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis 21 (2): 307–317. doi:10.1111/0272-4332.212113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dryzek, John S. 1990. Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, John, and Aviezer Tucker. 2008. “Deliberative Innovation to Different Effect: Consensus Conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States.” Public Administration Review 68 (5): 864–876. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00928.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dryzek, John, Dianne Nicol, Simon Niemeyer, Sonya Pemberton, Nicole Curato, André Bächtiger, Philip Batterham, et al. 2020. “Global Citizen Deliberation on Genome Editing.” Science (New York, N.Y.) 369 (6510): 1435–1437. doi:10.1126/science.abb5931.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eaton, Weston, Wynne Wright, Kyle Whyte, Stephen P. Gasteyer, and Pat J. Gehrke. 2014. “Engagement and Uncertainty: Emerging Technologies Challenge the Work of Engagement.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 18 (2): 151–178.
   Google Scholar
• Ehs, Tamara, and Monika Mokre. 2021. “Deliberation against Participation? Yellow Vests and Grand Débat: A Perspective from Deliberative Theory.” Political Studies Review 19 (2): 186–192. doi:10.1177/1478929920940947.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Einsiedel, Edna F., Erling Jelsøe, and Thomas Breck. 2001. “Publics at the Technology Table: The Consensus Conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia.” Public Understanding of Science 10 (1): 83–98. doi:10.3109/a036857.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2021. “Implementation of the EFSA Social Science Roadmap An update in support of EFSA Strategy 2027.” Accessed 01/31/2023. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/event/mb-20211216/C16.Social-Science-Roadmap-9.mb211216-i5.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2022. “Survey Data on New Genomic Techniques.” doi:10.5281/zenodo.7081944.
   Google Scholar
• Few, Roger, Katrina Brown, and Emma L. Tompkins. 2007. “Public Participation and Climate Change Adaptation: Avoiding the Illusion of Inclusion.” Climate Policy 7 (1): 46–59. doi:10.1080/14693062.2007.9685637.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishkin, James. 2020. “Cristina Lafont’s Challenge to Deliberative Minipublics.” Journal of Deliberative Democracy 16 (2): 56–62. doi:10.16997/jdd.394.
   Google Scholar
• Flynn, James, Paul Slovic, and C. K. Mertz. 1994. “Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks.” Risk Analysis : An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis 14 (6): 1101–1108. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00082.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frewer, Lynn J., and Susan Miles. 2001. “Risk Perception, Communication and Trust. How Might Consumer Confidence in the Food Supply Be Maintained?.” In Food, People and Society: A European Perspective of Consumers’ Food Choices, edited by Lynn J. Frewer, Einar Risvik and Hendrik Schifferstein, 401–413. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Fung, Archon. 2006. “Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance.” Public Administration Review 66 (s1): 66–75. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaskell, George, Agnes Allansdottir, Nick Allum, Paula Castro, Yilmaz Esmer, Claude Fischler, Jonathan Jackson, et al. 2011. “The 2010 Eurobarometer on the Life Sciences.” Nature Biotechnology 29 (2): 113–114. doi:10.1038/nbt.1771.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaskell, George, Katrin Hohl, and Monica M. Gerber. 2017. “Do Closed Survey Questions Overestimate Public Perceptions of Food Risks?” Journal of Risk Research 20 (8): 1038–1052. doi:10.1080/13669877.2016.1147492.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gehrke, Pat J. 2014. “Ecological Validity and the Study of Publics: The Case for Organic Public Engagement Methods.” Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England) 23 (1): 77–91. doi:10.1177/0963662513493575.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodin, Robert E., and John S. Dryzek. 2006. “Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics.” Politics & Society 34 (2): 219–244. doi:10.1177/0032329206288152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardy, Cynthia, Steve Maguire, Michael Power, and Haridimos Tsoukas. 2020. “Organizing Risk: Organization and Management Theory for the Risk Society.” Academy of Management Annals 14 (2): 1032–1066. doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Risk Governance Center (IRGC). 2017. Guidelines for Emerging Risk Governance. Lausanne, Switzerland: EPFL International Risk Governance Center.
   Google Scholar
• Janssens, A., J. W. Cecile, and Peter Kraft. 2012. “Research Conducted Using Data Obtained through Online Communities: Ethical Implications of Methodological Limitations.” PLoS Medicine 9 (10): e1001328. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, Leah R., Mahmud Farooque, Daniel Sarewitz, and David Tomblin. 2021. “Designing Participatory Technology Assessments: A Reflexive Method for Advancing the Public Role in Science Policy Decision-Making.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 171: 120974. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120974.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitzinger, Jenny. 1995. “Qualitative Research: Introducing Focus Groups.” BMJ (Clinical Research ed.) 311 (7000): 299–302. doi:10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klinke, Andreas, and Ortwin Renn. 2021. “The Coming of Age of Risk Governance.” Risk Analysis : An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis 41 (3): 544–557. doi:10.1111/risa.13383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kluver, Lars. 1995. “Consensus Conferences at the Danish Board of Technology.” In Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe, edited by Simon Joss and John Durant, 41–52. London: Science Museum.
   Google Scholar
• Knight, Andrew J., and Rex Warland. 2005. “Determinants of Food Safety Risks: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach*.” Rural Sociology 70 (2): 253–275. doi:10.1526/0036011054776389.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuiken, Todd, Rodolphe Barrangou, and Khara Grieger. 2021. “(Broken) Promises of Sustainable Food and Agriculture through New Biotechnologies: The CRISPR Case.” The CRISPR Journal 4 (1): 25–31. doi:10.1089/crispr.2020.0098.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuzma, Jennifer. 2021. “Procedurally Robust Risk Assessment Framework for Novel Genetically Engineered Organisms and Gene Drives.” Regulation & Governance 15 (4): 1144–1165. doi:10.1111/rego.12245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lafont, Cristina. 2015. “Deliberation, Participation, and Democratic Legitimacy: Should Deliberative Mini-Publics Shape Public Policy?” Journal of Political Philosophy 23 (1): 40–63. doi:10.1111/jopp.12031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majone, Giandomenico. 1999. “The Regulatory State and Its Legitimacy Problems.” West European Politics 22 (1): 1–24. doi:10.1080/01402389908425284.
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, Jane, James Bohman, Simone Chambers, Thomas Christiano, Archon Fung, John Parkinson, Dennis F. Thompson, and Mark E. Warren. 2012. “A Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy.” In Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, edited by J. Parkinson and J. Mansbridge, 1–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merkelsen, Henrik. 2011. “Risk Communication and Citizen Engagement: What to Expect from Dialogue.” Journal of Risk Research 14 (5): 631–645. doi:10.1080/13669877.2011.553731.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mey, Günter. 2020. “Qualitative Methodology.” In International Handbook of Psychology Learning and Teaching, edited by Joerg Zumbach, Douglas Bernstein, Susanne Narciss and Giuseppina Marsico, 1–26. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Mockler, Patricia. 2022. “Measuring the Inclusiveness of Deliberation: structural Inequality and the Discourse Quality Index.” Comparative European Politics 20 (1): 53–72. doi:10.1057/s41295-021-00262-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moe, Wendy W., and David A. Schweidel. 2017. “Opportunities for Innovation in Social Media Analytics.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 34 (5): 697–702. doi:10.1111/jpim.12405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, David L. 2012. The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Nardi, Vinicius Antonio., Machado, Rafael Teixeira, Wagner, Junior Ladeira, and Fernando de Oliveira Santini. 2020. “A Meta-Analytic Review of Food Safety Risk Perception.” Food Control. 112. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107089.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nazir, Faria, Mustansar Ali Ghazanfar, Muazzam Maqsood, Farhan Aadil, Seungmin Rho, and Irfan Mehmood. 2019. “Social Media Signal Detection Using Tweets Volume, Hashtag, and Sentiment Analysis.” Multimedia Tools and Applications 78 (3): 3553–3586. doi:10.1007/s11042-018-6437-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen, Richard, Jack Stilgoe, Phil Macnaghten, Mike Gorman, Erik Fisher, and Dave Guston. 2013. “A Framework for Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation, edited by R. Owen, J. Bessant and M. Heintz, 27–50. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Pansera, Mario, Richard Owen, Darian Meacham, and Vivienne Kuh. 2020. “Embedding Responsible Innovation within Synthetic Biology Research and Innovation: Insights from a UK Multi-Disciplinary Research Centre.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 7 (3): 384–409. doi:10.1080/23299460.2020.1785678.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pidgeon, Nick. 2021. “Engaging Publics about Environmental and Technology Risks: frames, Values and Deliberation.” Journal of Risk Research 24 (1): 28–46. doi:10.1080/13669877.2020.1749118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renn, Ortwin, and Pia-Johanna Schweizer. 2009. “Inclusive Risk Governance: concepts and Application to Environmental Policy Making.” Environmental Policy and Governance 19 (3): 174–185. doi:10.1002/eet.507.
   Google Scholar
• Renn, Ortwin, and Pia-Johanna Schweizer. 2020. “Inclusive Governance for Energy Policy Making: Conceptual Foundations, Applications, and Lessons Learned.” In The Role of Public Participation in Energy Transitions, edited by O. Renn, F. Ulmer and A. Deckert, 39–79. London: Elsevier Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Renn, Ortwin, Andreas Klinke, Pia-Johanna Schweizer, and Ferdiana Hoti. 2022. “Risk Perception and Its Impacts on Risk Governance.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Environmental Economics, edited by James R. Kahn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Renn, Ortwin, Thomas Webler, and Peter Wiedemann. 1995. “The Pursuit of Fair and Competent Citizen Participation.” In Technology, Risk, and Society: 339–367.
   Google Scholar
• Renn, Ortwin. 2017. “Risk Governance: Concept and Application to Systemic Risk.” In Risk Conundrums: Solving Unsolvable Problems, edited by R.E. Kasperson, 243–259. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Renn, Ortwin. 2021. “New Challenges for Risk Analysis: Systemic Risks.” Journal of Risk Research 24 (1): 127–133. doi:10.1080/13669877.2020.1779787.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rountree, John, Chris Anderson, Justin Reedy, and Matthew C. Nowlin. 2022. “The Internal Dynamics of “Scaling up” Deliberative Mini-Publics.” Communication and the Public 7 (3): 146–164. doi:10.1177/20570473221106025.
   Google Scholar
• Ruggiero, A., and M. Vos. 2014. “Social Media Monitoring for Crisis Communication: Process, Methods and Trends in the Scientific Literature.” Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies 4 (1): 105–130. doi:10.29333/ojcmt/2457.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, A. Wendy, Aleksandra Stelmach, Sarah Hartley, Lucy Carter, and Sujatha Raman. 2022. “Opening up, Closing down, or Leaving Ajar? How Applications Are Used in Engaging with Publics about Gene Drive.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 9 (2): 151–172. doi:10.1080/23299460.2022.2042072.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satterfield, Terre A., C. K. Mertz, and Paul Slovic. 2004. “Discrimination, Vulnerability, and Justice in the Face of Risk.” Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis 24 (1): 115–129. doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00416.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz, Marlen, Birgit Mack, and Ortwin Renn. 2012. Fokusgruppen in der empirischen Sozialwissenschaft: Von der Konzeption bis zur Auswertung. Heidelberg: Springer VS.
   Google Scholar
• Siegrist, Michael, and Joseph Árvai. 2020. “Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research.” Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis 40 (S1): 2191–2206. doi:10.1111/risa.13599.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stirling, Andy C., and Ian Scoones. 2009. “From Risk Assessment to Knowledge Mapping: science, Precaution, and Participation in Disease Ecology.” Ecology and Society 14 (2) doi:10.5751/ES-02980-140214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ufer, Danielle, David L. Ortega, and Christopher A. Wolf. 2019. “Economic Foundations for the Use of Biotechnology to Improve Farm Animal Welfare.” Trends in Food Science & Technology 91: 129–138. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2019.07.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Upham, Paul, Leonie Dendler, and Mercedes Bleda. 2011. “Carbon Labelling of Grocery Products: Public Perceptions and Potential Emissions Reductions.” Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (4): 348–355. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.05.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ureta, Sebastián. 2016. “A Failed Platform: The Citizen Consensus Conference Travels to Chile.” Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England) 25 (4): 499–511. doi:10.1177/0963662514561940.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Heijden, Jeroen. 2021. “Risk as an Approach to Regulatory Governance: An Evidence Synthesis and Research Agenda.” SAGE Open 11 (3): 215824402110322. doi:10.1177/21582440211032202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh, Louisa, Nerida Hyett, Nicole Juniper, Chi Li, Sophie Rodier, and Sophie Hill. 2021. “The Use of Social Media as a Tool for Stakeholder Engagement in Health Service Design and Quality Improvement: A Scoping Review.” Digital Health 7: 2055207621996870. doi:10.1177/2055207621996870.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webler, Thomas, and Seth Tuler. 2021. “Four Decades of Public Participation in Risk Decision Making.” Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis 41 (3): 503–518. doi:10.1111/risa.13250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weller, Nicholas, Michelle Sullivan Govani, and Mahmud Farooque. 2021. “Need Public Policy for Human Gene Editing, Heatwaves, or Asteroids? Try Thinking like a Citizen.” Issues in Science and Technology 37 (3): 12–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendling, Cécile. 2014. “Incorporating Social Sciences in Public Risk Assessment and Risk Management Organisations.” European Journal of Risk Regulation 5 (1): 7–13. doi:10.1017/S1867299X00002907.
   Google Scholar
• Young, Iris Marion. 2002. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zachlod, Cécile, Olga Samuel, Andrea Ochsner, and Sarah Werthmüller. 2022. “Analytics of Social Media Data—State of Characteristics and Application.” Journal of Business Research 144: 1064–1076. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.02.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar