| Recent years have seen increased calls for the participation of ordinary citizens or non-experts in science and technology policy as well as an increase in the number of institutional innovations that give shape to these calls. One such innovation is the consensus conference. Developed in Denmark and largely based on the ideals of deliberative democracy, this form of public participation in science and technology policy making has diffused across the world. In the U.S. a modified version of the consensus conference that combines online deliberation with face to face deliberations, termed as Citizens’ Technology Forum (CTF) has been used in research settings. The ideals of respectful reason-giving, equality and inclusion form the bedrock of both the consensus conference and the CTF.;In this dissertation I look at the National Citizens’ Technology Forum (NCTF) that took place in March, 2008 in six cities across the U.S. to study how inclusive these methods of public participation are in practice. My study looks at two of these sites, Site A and Site B, to understand whether inclusion in terms of presence, voice and being heard is achieved. By focusing on the talk within these deliberative forums I look at how the rules of engagement and status differences can affect inclusion. My main argument is that organizers and facilitators of deliberative exercises have to be reflexive of their role as well as aware of the group dynamics as these can influence inclusion and equality between participants. The results also address the larger questions within science and technology policy like the role of expertise and the public in policy making, the institutional design of participatory exercises, and their relation to the political culture and the policy process. |
