Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Australian Office of Nanotechnology (2008) Social inclusion and community engagement report (Australian Office of Nanotechnology)

  2. Bauer WM, Durant J, Evans G (1994) European public perceptions of science. Int J Public Opin Res 6:2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 16:79–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 31:324–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bowman D, Stokes E, Bennett M (2013) Anticipating the societal challenges of nanotechnologies. NanoEthics 7(1):29–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brown S (2009) The new deficit model. Nat Nanotechnol 4:609–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Community Interest and Engagement with Science and Technology in Victoria (Victorian Department of Innovation and Business) (2011), available at http://www.business.gov.au

  8. Cormick C (2009) Why do we need to know what the public thinks about nanotechnology? Nanoethics 3:167–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):36–50

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cormick C (2012) The complexity of public engagement. Nat Nanotechnol 7:77–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  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):1463–1485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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:http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/PublicAwarenessandEngagement/Documents/NanotechnologyPublicAwareness2011.pdf

  14. Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (2013) Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues—Nanotechnology, available at: http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/PublicAwarenessandEngagement/Documents/Emergingtechstudynano.pdf

  15. Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (2013) Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues—Biotechnology, available at: http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/PublicAwarenessandEngagement/Documents/Emergingtechstudybio.pdf

  16. Doorn N (2013) Wide reflective equilibirium as a normative model for responsible governance. NanoEthics 7(1):29–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1983) Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  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 229–232

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Druckman J, Bolsen T (2010) Framing motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent Technologies Institute for Policy Research (Northwestern University, Working Paper Series)

  20. Ferrari A, Nordmann A (2010) Beyond conversation: some lessons for nanoethics. NanoEthics 4:171–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 17:245–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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, London

  23. Guston D (2008) Innovation policy: Not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature 454:940–941

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ipsos Mori Social Research Institute (2006) Ingredients for community engagement: the civic pioneer experience (Ipsos Mori Social Research Institute), pp. 12–13

  25. Kearns M, Macnaghten P, Wilson J (2006) Governing at the Nanoscale, Demos, available at http://demos.co.uk/publications/governingatthenanoscale

  26. Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S, Amos A (1998) The new genetics and health: mobilizing lay expertise. Public Underst Sci 7(1):41–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):559–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lakoff G (2004) Don’t think of an elephant? Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction

    Google Scholar 

  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 Communication

  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 97–111

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Miller JD (1983) Scientific literacy: a conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus 11:29–48

    Google Scholar 

  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 2:1169–1178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nyhan B, Reifler J (2010) When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Polit Behav 32(2):303–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):345–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rogers-Hayden T, Mohr A, Pidgeon N (2007) Introduction: engaging with nanotechnologies—engaging differently? NanoEthics 1:123–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Public Attitudes to Science, Research Councils UK (2008) Available at: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/scisoc/pas08guide.pdf

  37. Slovic P, Peters E (1998) The importance of worldviews in risk perception. J Risk Decis Policy 3(2):165–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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, Illinois

  39. Stirling A (2008) “Opening Up” and “Closing Down”: power, participation, and pluralism. Sci Technol Hum Values 33(2):262–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sturgis P, Allum N (2004) Science in society re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Underst Sci 13(1):55–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wynne B (1991) Knowledges in context. Sci Technol Hum Values 16:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 Oaks

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CSIRO, Limestone Avenue, Canberra, Australia

    Craig Cormick

  2. CSIRO, Clayton, Melbourne, Australia

    Simon Hunter

Authors
  1. Craig Cormick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon Hunter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Craig Cormick.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cormick, C., Hunter, S. Valuing Values: Better Public Engagement on Nanotechnology Demands a Better Understanding of the Diversity of Publics. Nanoethics 8, 57–71 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-014-0188-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-014-0188-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation