, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 57–71 | Cite as

Valuing Values: Better Public Engagement on Nanotechnology Demands a Better Understanding of the Diversity of Publics

  • Craig Cormick
  • Simon Hunter
Original Paper


As public attitude research evolves, often becoming more complex and variable, we are coming to understand that public attitudes are also more complex and variable than can often be captured by a single opinion poll, and more sophisticated forms of analyses are needed that look not just at a breadth of attitudes, but at a breadth of publics. The Australian Department of Industry undertook a public attitude study in 2012 that was not only longitudinal, looking at changes in attitudes towards nanotechnologies, but also looking at the values or worldviews that influence attitudes. The findings allowed for a segmentation of the public, into four key segments, with distinct homogenous attitudes. This allows for not just a deeper understanding of the diversity of views that exist and the worldviews that influence them, but challenges engagement practitioners to ensure they have a broad representation of participants with different attitudes and do not favour one or two segments only.


Public attitudes Polling Survey Segments Values 


  1. 1.
    Australian Office of Nanotechnology (2008) Social inclusion and community engagement report (Australian Office of Nanotechnology)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauer WM, Durant J, Evans G (1994) European public perceptions of science. Int J Public Opin Res 6:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bauer WM, Allum N, Miller S (2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Underst Sci 16:79–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Binder A, Scheufele D, Brossard D, Gunther AC (2010) Interpersonal amplification of risk? Citizen discussions and their impact on perceptions of risk and benefits of a biological research facility. Risk Anal 31:324–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bowman D, Stokes E, Bennett M (2013) Anticipating the societal challenges of nanotechnologies. NanoEthics 7(1):29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown S (2009) The new deficit model. Nat Nanotechnol 4:609–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Community Interest and Engagement with Science and Technology in Victoria (Victorian Department of Innovation and Business) (2011), available at
  8. 8.
    Cormick C (2009) Why do we need to know what the public thinks about nanotechnology? Nanoethics 3:167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cormick C (2012) Ten big questions on public engagement on science and technology: observation from a rocky boat in the upstream and downstream of engagement. DEMESCI 1(1):36–50Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cormick C (2012) The complexity of public engagement. Nat Nanotechnol 7:77–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cormick C (2012) How do we gain the interest of people who are uninterested in science and technology? In: van Lente H, Coenen C, Fleischer T, Konrad K, Krabbenborg L, Milburn C, Thoreau F, Zülsdorf T (eds) Little by little—expansions of nanoscience and emerging technologies. IOS Press / AKA, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Costa-Font M, Gil JM (2012) Meta-attitudes and the local formation of consumer judgments towards genetically modified food. Br Food J 114(10):1463–1485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (2011) Australian Community Attitudes held about Nanotechnology—Trends 2005 to 2011, Market Attitude Research Services, available at:
  14. 14.
    Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (2013) Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues—Nanotechnology, available at:
  15. 15.
    Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (2013) Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues—Biotechnology, available at:
  16. 16.
    Doorn N (2013) Wide reflective equilibirium as a normative model for responsible governance. NanoEthics 7(1):29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1983) Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Drioli A (2013) TIME for nano, tools to increase mass engagement for nanotechnology. In: Mruyas A-M, Riccio M (eds) Science centres and science events. Springer Verlag, Italy, pp 229–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Druckman J, Bolsen T (2010) Framing motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent Technologies Institute for Policy Research (Northwestern University, Working Paper Series)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ferrari A, Nordmann A (2010) Beyond conversation: some lessons for nanoethics. NanoEthics 4:171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gamble J, Kassardjian E (2008) The use of selected community groups to elicit and understand the values underlying attitudes towards biotechnology. Public Underst Sci 17:245–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gaskel G, Allum NC, Wagner W, Hviid Nielsen T, Jelsoe E, Kohring M, Bauer M (2001) In the public eyes: representations of biotechnology in Europe. In Gaskell G, Bauer M (eds) Biotechnology 1996–2000: the years of controversy. London Science Museum Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guston D (2008) Innovation policy: Not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature 454:940–941Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ipsos Mori Social Research Institute (2006) Ingredients for community engagement: the civic pioneer experience (Ipsos Mori Social Research Institute), pp. 12–13Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kearns M, Macnaghten P, Wilson J (2006) Governing at the Nanoscale, Demos, available at
  26. 26.
    Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S, Amos A (1998) The new genetics and health: mobilizing lay expertise. Public Underst Sci 7(1):41–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kurath M, Gisler P (2009) Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 18(5):559–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lakoff G (2004) Don’t think of an elephant? Chelsea Green Publishing, White River JunctionGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leiserowitz A et al (2012) Global warming’s six Americas, Yale University and George Mason University, New Haven, CT, Yale Project on Climate Change CommunicationGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Milford R, Wetmore M (2013) A new model for public engagement: the dialogue on nanotechnology and religion. In: Hays S et al (eds) Nanotechnology, the brain and the future, Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society 3. Springer Science and Business Media, Dordrecht, pp 97–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Miller JD (1983) Scientific literacy: a conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus 11:29–48Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mohr P, Harrison A, Wilson C, Baghurst K, Syrette J (2007) Attitudes, values and socio-demographic characteristics that predict acceptance of genetic engineering and applications of new technology in Australia. Biotechnol J 2:1169–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nyhan B, Reifler J (2010) When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Polit Behav 32(2):303–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2007) Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering’s inquiry. Public Underst Sci 16(3):345–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rogers-Hayden T, Mohr A, Pidgeon N (2007) Introduction: engaging with nanotechnologies—engaging differently? NanoEthics 1:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Public Attitudes to Science, Research Councils UK (2008) Available at:
  37. 37.
    Slovic P, Peters E (1998) The importance of worldviews in risk perception. J Risk Decis Policy 3(2):165–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sniderman PM, Glaser JM, Griffin R (1990) Information and electoral choice. In: Ferejohn J, Kuklinksi J (eds) Information and democratic processes. University of Illinois Press, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stirling A (2008) “Opening Up” and “Closing Down”: power, participation, and pluralism. Sci Technol Hum Values 33(2):262–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sturgis P, Allum N (2004) Science in society re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Underst Sci 13(1):55–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wynne B (1991) Knowledges in context. Sci Technol Hum Values 16:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wynne B (1995) Public understanding of science. In: Jasanoff S, Markle G, Petersen J, Pinch T (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. Saga Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CSIROCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.CSIROMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations