Understanding Public Responses to Emerging Technologies: A Narrative Approach

References

• Anders, G. (1982). Hiroshima Ist Überall [Hiroshima is everywhere]. Munich: C. H. Beck.
   Google Scholar
• Bamberg, M., & Andrews, M. (Eds.). (2004). Considering counter-narratives: Narrating, resisting, making sense. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Barbour, R. (2008). Doing focus groups. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2004). Two cultures of nanotechnology. HYLE: International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 10, 65–82.
   Google Scholar
• Bloomfield, B., & Vurdubakis, T. (1995). New reproductive technologies and the language of anxiety and expectation. Social Studies of Science, 25, 533–551. doi: 10.1177/030631295025003005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (2001). Focus groups in social research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Busch, L. (2011). Standards: Recipes for reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cobb, M., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 395–405. doi: 10.1007/s11051-004-3394-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, S., Kearnes, M., & Macnaghten, P. (2009). ‘All things weird and scary’: Nanotechnology, theology, and cultural resources. Culture and Religion, 10, 201–220. doi: 10.1080/14755610903077570
   Google Scholar
• Davies, S., & Macnaghten, P. (2010). Narratives of mastery and resistance: Lay ethics of nanotechnology. NanoEthics, 4, 141–151. doi: 10.1007/s11569-010-0096-5
   Google Scholar
• Davies, S., Macnaghten, P., & Kearnes, M. (Eds.). (2009). Reconfiguring responsibility: Deepening debate on nanotechnology. Durham, UK: Durham University.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, M. (1990). Converging on autonomy: Anthropology and institutional economics. In O. Williamson (Ed.), Organization theory: From Chester Barnard to the present and beyond (pp. 98–115). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dupuy, J.-P. (2010). The narratology of lay ethics. NanoEthics, 4, 153–170. doi: 10.1007/s11569-010-0097-4
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. (1993). Discourse and social change. Chichester: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Felt, U., Schumann, S., Schwarz, C., & Strassnig, M. (2014). Technology of imagination. A card-based public engagement method for debating emerging technologies. Qualitative Research, 14, 233–251. doi: 10.1177/1468794112468468
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felt, U., Wynne, B., Callon, M., Gonçalves, M., Jasanoff, S., Jepsen, M., … Tallacchine, M. (2007). Taking European knowledge seriously (Report of the expert group on science and governance to the science, Economy and Society Directorate, EUR 2(2700). Directorate-General for Research). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, M. (2003). Emergent forms of life and the anthropological voice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, G., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora's box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gobo, G. (2005). Sampling, representativeness and generalizability. In G. Gobo, J. Gubrium, C. Seale, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 65–79). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Grove-White, R. (1993). Environmentalism: A new moral discourse. In K. Milton (Ed.), Environmentalism: The view from anthropology (pp. 18–30). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Grove-White, R. (1997). Environment, risk and democracy. The Political Quarterly, 68(B), 109–122. doi: 10.1111/1467-923X.00120
   Google Scholar
• Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Mayer, S., & Wynne, B. (1997). Uncertain world: GMOs, food and public attitudes in Britain (A report by centre for the study of environmental change, Lancaster University, UK in association with Unilever).
   Google Scholar
• Hacking, I. (1992). ‘Style’ for historians and philosophers. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 23, 1–20. doi: 10.1016/0039-3681(92)90024-Z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernisation and the policy process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heller, A. (2006). European master-narratives about freedom. In G. Delanty (Ed.), Handbook of European social theory (pp. 257–265). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. (1988). The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 53–78. doi: 10.1086/228951
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horlick-Jones, T. (2007). On the signature of new technologies: Sociality, materiality and practical reasoning. In R. Flynn & P. Bellaby (Eds.), Risk and the public acceptance of new technologies (pp. 41–65). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Horlick-Jones, T., & Prades, A. (2009). On interpretative risk perception research: Some reflections on its origins; its nature; and its possible applications in risk communication practice. Health, Risk & Society, 11, 409–430. doi: 10.1080/13698570903180448
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., & Kitzinger, J. (2007). Bricolage in action: Learning about, making sense of, and discussing issues about genetically modified crops and food. Health, Risk & Society, 9, 83–103. doi: 10.1080/13698570601181623
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kearnes, M., Macnaghten, P., & Wilsdon, J. (2006). Governing at the nanoscale: People, policies and emerging technologies. London: Demos.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, C., Scheufele, D., & Lewenstein, B. (2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27, 240–267. doi: 10.1177/1075547005281474
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lezaun, J., & Soneryd, L. (2007). Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 279–297. doi: 10.1177/0963662507079371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P. (2001). Animal futures: Public attitudes and sensibilities towards animals and biotechnology in contemporary Britain (A report by the Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy. Lancaster University, UK for the Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission).
   Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P. (2004). Animals in their nature: A case study of public attitudes on animals, genetic modification and ‘nature’. Sociology, 38, 533–551. doi: 10.1177/0038038504043217
   Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P. (2010). Researching technoscientific concerns in-the-making: Narrative structures, public responses and emerging nanotechnologies. Environment & Planning A, 41, 23–37. doi: 10.1068/a41349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P., & Chilvers, J. (2014). The future of science governance: Publics, policies, practices. Environment & Planning C: Government and Policy, 32, 530–548. doi: 10.1068/c1245j
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P., & Guivant, J. (2011). Converging citizens? Nanotechnology and the political imaginary of public engagement in Brazil and the UK. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 207–220. doi: 10.1177/0963662510379084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P., & Myers, G. (2004). Focus groups: The moderator's view and the analyst's view. In G. Gobo, J. Gubrium, C. Seale, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 65–79). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P., & Szerszynski, B. (2013). Living the global social experiment: An analysis of public discourse on solar radiation management and its implications for governance. Global Environmental Change, 23, 465–474. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macoubrie, J. (2005). Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
   Google Scholar
• Macoubrie, J. (2006). Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 221–241. doi: 10.1177/0963662506056993
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcus, G. (Ed.). (1995). Technoscientific imaginaries: Conversations, profiles and memoirs. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marres, N. (2012). Material participation: Technology, the environment and everyday publics. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Milbank, J. (2006). Theology and social theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, D., Kitzinger, J., Williams, K., & Beharrel, P. (1998). The circuit of mass communication. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Mulkay, M. (1993). Rhetorics of hope and fear in the great embryo debate. Social Studies of Science, 23, 721–742. doi: 10.1177/030631293023004004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, M. (2004). Matters of opinion: Dynamics of talk about public issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8, 36–70. doi: 10.1177/1081180X02251047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39, 751–760. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., Stilgoe, J., Gorman, M., Fisher, E., & Guston, D. (2013). A framework for responsible innovation. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heitz (Eds.), Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 27–50). Oxford: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Pellizzoni, L. (2004). Responsibility and environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 13, 541–565. doi: 10.1080/0964401042000229034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellizzoni, L. (2011). Governing through disorder: Neoliberal environmental governance and social theory. Global Environmental Change, 21, 795–803. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.03.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peter D Hart Research Associates. (2008). Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology. Conducted on behalf of: Project On Emerging Nanotechnologies, The Woodrow Wilson International Center For Scholars. Washington, DC: Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Priest, S. (1995). Information equity, public understanding of science and the biotechnology debate. Journal of Communication, 45, 39–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1995.tb00713.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priest, S. (2001). Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication, 23, 97–110. doi: 10.1177/1075547001023002002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proctor, J. (1998). The meaning of global environmental change: Retheorising culture in human dimensions research. Global Environmental Change, 8, 227–248. doi: 10.1016/S0959-3780(98)00006-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puchta, C., & Potter, J. (2004). Focus group practice. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Rejeski, D. (2007). Why nano fear will not disappear. Foresight and Governance Project. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, N. (2007). The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D., & Lewenstein, B. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 659–667. doi: 10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silber, I. (2003). Pragmatic sociology as cultural sociology: Beyond repertoire theory? European Journal of Social Theory, 6, 427–449. doi: 10.1177/13684310030064004
   Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework of responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42, 1568–1580. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stirling, A. (2008). ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science Technology and Human Values, 33, 262–294. doi: 10.1177/0162243907311265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swierstra, T., & Rip, A. (2007). Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics, 1, 3–20. doi: 10.1007/s11569-007-0005-8
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. (1996). May the sheep safely graze: A reflexive view of the expert-lay divide. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology (pp. 44–83). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. (2001). Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture, 10, 445–481. doi: 10.1080/09505430120093586
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wynne, B. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics, 9, 211–220.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar