Political Behavior

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 175–192 | Cite as

Exploring the Roots of Public Participation in the Controversy Over Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Cloning

Original paper

Abstract

In this study, analyzing nationally represented survey data collected in 2003, we consider the roots of issue-specific citizen participation in the controversy over embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. Building on past research, we pay particular theoretical attention to the role of issue engagements, the impact of church-based recruitment, and the influence of news media attentiveness. Given the increasing emphasis in science policy circles on creating new forms of public engagement, we also measure citizen willingness to attend and participate in a proposed local deliberative forum on the stem cell debate. Results indicate that traditional forms of citizen activism in the controversy over embryonic stem cell research and cloning is rooted almost exclusively in direct requests for participation through religious organizations rather than socio-economic differences among respondents, though issue engagement (measured as opinion intensity) and news attentiveness also play an important role. In terms of deliberative forums, traditional resource factors are significant, as the citizens who indicate they are most likely to participate in such a hypothetical local town meeting are generally highly educated, white, and younger. Above and beyond these resource factors, however, citizens willing to participate are also likely to have received requests to get involved in the debate at church, hold more intense feelings about the issue, and are paying closer attention to news coverage. In the future, in order to ensure the normative goals of diverse and/or representative participation, if actual deliberative forums are employed, these findings suggest that organizers will need to focus heavily on purposive sampling and turn out efforts.

Keywords

Participation Stem cells Cloning Public opinion Issue engagements Churches Recruitment 

References

  1. Brady, H., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (1999). Prospecting for participants: Rational expectations and the recruitment of political activists. American Political Science Review, 93, 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brossard, D., & Shanahan, J. (2003). Do citizens want to have their say? Media, agricultural biotechnology, and authoritarian views of science. Mass Communication and Society, 6, 291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, A. C. (1996). African American churches and political mobilization: The psychological impact of organization resources. Journal of Politics, 58, 935–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, R. K., & Brown, R. E. (2003). Faith and works: Church-based social capital resources and African-American political activism. Social Forces, 82, 617–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burns, N., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (2001). The private roots of public action: Gender, equality, and political participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, A. L. (2002). Self -interest, Social Security, and the distinctive participation patterns of senior citizens. American Political Science Review, 96, 565–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, A. L. (2003a). Participatory reactions to policy threats: Senior citizens and the defense of Social Security and Medicare. Political Behavior, 25, 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, A. L. (2003b). How policies make citizens: Senior political activism and the American welfare state. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Curtin, R., Presser, S., & Singer S. (2000). The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiments. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(4), 416–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dahl, R. A. (1956). A preface to democratic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dewey, J. (1954). The public and its problems. Athens, Ohio: Swallow Press.Google Scholar
  14. Djupe, P. A., & Grant, J. T. (2001). Religious institutions and political participation in America. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 40, 303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Djupe, P. A., & Gilbert, C. P. (2002). The political voice of clergy. Journal of Politics, 64, 596–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  17. Dutton, D. (1984). The impact of public participation in biomedical policy: Evidence from four case studies. In J. C. Petersen (Ed.), Citizen participation in science policy. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  18. Einsiedel, E., Jelsoe, E., & Breck, T. (2001). Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 83–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eveland, W., & Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communication, 17, 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  21. Greenberg, A. (2000). The church and the revitalization of politics and the community. Political Science Quarterly, 115, 377–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guth, J. L., Beal, L., Crow, G., Gaddy, B., Montreal, S., Nelsen, B., Penning, J., & Walz, J. (2003). The political activity of evangelical clergy in the election of 2000: A case study of five denominations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 501–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Harris, G. (1994). Something within: Religion as a mobilizer of African-American political Activism. Journal of Politics, 56, 42–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hildreth, A. (1994). Making ‘easy’ issues ‘hard’: How interest groups shape the ‘faces’ of public issues. Presented at the American Political Science Association Meetings. September 1–4, 1994. New York City.Google Scholar
  26. House of Lords (2000). Report by Select Committee appointed to consider Science and Technology, February 23, 2000.Google Scholar
  27. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communications: Information and influences in an election campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Irwin, A. (2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Keeter, S., Miller, C., Kohut, A., Groves, R. M., & Presser, S. (2000). Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 125–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. King, G., & Zeng, L. (2003). Relogit: Rare events logistic regression. Journal of Statistical Software, 8(2) 137–163.Google Scholar
  32. King, G., & Zeng, L. (2001a). Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis, 9, 137–163.Google Scholar
  33. King, G., & Zeng, L. (2001b). Explaining rare events in international relations. International Organization, 55, 693–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kohut, A., Green, J. C., Keeter, S., & Toth, R. C. (2000). The diminishing divide: Religion’s changing role in American politics. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
  35. Kosicki, G., Martin, M. K., & Lee, R. H. (2003). Response rates today: Academic survey centers. Paper presented at the 58th annual meeting of the American Association of Public Opinion Research.Google Scholar
  36. Krimsky, S. (1991). Biotechnics and Society: The rise of industrial genetics. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  37. Krosnick, J. (1990). Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue publics in contemporary America. Political Behavior, 12, 59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krosnick, J., & Telhami, S. (1995). Public attitudes toward Israel: A study of the attentive and issue publics. International Studies Quarterly, 39, 535–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leege, D. C. (1993). Religion and politics in theoretical perspective. In D. C. Leege & L. Kellstedt (Eds.), Rediscovering the religious factor in American Politics (pp. 3–25). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Leighley, Jan. (1996). JOP 58.Google Scholar
  40. Leighley, J., (1996). Group membership and the mobilization of political participation. Journal of Politics, 58(2), 447–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lemert, J. B. (1992). Effective public opinion. In J. D. Kennamer (Eds.), Public opinion, the press, and public policy. (pp. 41–61). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  42. McCarthy, J., & Zald, M. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1212–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., Moy, P., Horowitz, Ed M., Holbert, R. L., Zhang, W., Zubric, S., & Zubric, J. (1999). Understanding deliberation: The effects of discussion networks on participation in a public forum. Communication Research, 26(6), 623–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., & Moy, P. (1999). Community, communication, and participation: The role of the mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication, 16, 315–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McComas, K. A. (2001). Theory and practice of public meetings. Communication Theory, 11, 36–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nisbet, M. C. (2004). The stem cell controversy: Towards a model of mediated issue development. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the International Communication Association.Google Scholar
  47. Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(2), 36–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2004). Political talk as a catalyst for online citizenship. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(4), 877–896.Google Scholar
  49. Price, V., Dutwin, D., & Na, E. K. (2000). Who deliberates? Opportunities, motivations and resources for participation in citizen deliberation. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the International Communication Association (ICA), May 2002. Acapulco, Mexico.Google Scholar
  50. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  51. Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen J. M., (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: MacMillan Publishing.Google Scholar
  52. Salisbury, R. (1975). Research in political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 19, 323–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Scheufele, D. A. (2002). Differential gains from mass media and their implications for participatory behavior. Communication Research, 29, 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scheufele, D. A., & Nisbet, M. C. (2002). Being a citizen online: New opportunities and dead ends. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7, 53–73.Google Scholar
  55. Scheufele, D. A., Nisbet, M. C., & Brossard, D. (2003). Pathways to political participation? Religion, communication contexts, and mass media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15, 300–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scheufele, D. A., Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Nisbet, E. C. (2004). Social structure and citizenship: Examining the impacts of social setting, network heterogeneity, and informational variables on political participation. Political Communication, 21, 315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Verba, S., & Brody, R. (1970). Participation, policy preferences, and the war in Vietman. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Verba, S., & Nie, N. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  59. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. (2000). Rational action and political activity. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 12, 243–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wald, K. D. (1992). Religion and politics in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
  62. Wald, K. D., Owen, D. E., & Hill, S. S. Jr., (1988). Churches as political communities. American Political Science Review, 28, 531–547.Google Scholar
  63. Warren, M. C. (2001). Dry bones rattling: Community building to revitalize American Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Wood, R. L. (2002). Faith in action: Religion, race, and democratic organizing in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Director of Public Policy Research, Reilly Center for Media and Public Affairs, Manship School of Mass CommunicationLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA
  2. 2.Assistant Professor, School of CommunicationAmerican UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations