Consensus conferences, also known as citizens’ panels—a collection of lay citizens akin to a jury but charged with deliberating on policy issues with a high technical content—are a potentially important way to conduct technology assessments, inform policy makers about public views of new technologies, and improve public understanding of and participation in technological decision making. The first citizens’ panel in the United States occurred in April 1997 on the issue of “Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy.” This article evaluates the impact of this citizens’ panel. The standard criteria to evaluate the impact of analyses focus on the “actual impact” and on the “impact on general thinking.” To these standard criteria, this article introduces the evaluation of two impacts related to learning: impact on the training of knowledgeable personnel and the interaction with lay knowledge. The impact evaluation is based on a nearly comprehensive set of semistructured telephone interviews with the participants in the panel.
References
1.
Bimber, Bruce. 1996. The politics of expertise: The rise and fall of the congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Albany: State University of New York Press.
2.
Bimber, Bruce, and David H. Guston. 1997. Introduction: The end of OTA and the future of technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change54 (2/3): 125-130.
3.
Brody, Herb. 1997. Wired for democracy? The promises and perils of the new communications technologies. Commissioned background paper, Citizens’ Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy, April 1997, mimeo.
4.
Browne, Angela, and Aaron Wildavsky. 1984. What should evaluation mean to implementation? In Implementation, edited by Jeffrey L. Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky, 181-205. 3d ed.Berkeley: University of California Press.
5.
Citizens’ Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy. 1997. Consensus statement. 4 April. Mimeo.
6.
Clark, William C., and Giandomenico Majone. 1985. The critical appraisal of scientific inquiries with policy implications. Science, Technology, & Human Values10 (3): 6-19.
7.
EPIIC. 1997. EPIIC experts questions, Citizens’ Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy, 18 March 1997. Mimeo.
8.
Fixdal, John. 1997. Consensus conferences as extended peer groups. Paper presented at the conference on Technology and Democracy: Comparative Perspectives, January, Oslo, Norway.
9.
Flint, Anthony. 1997. At Tufts, no wonks need apply. Boston Globe, 5 April, B1.
10.
Grin, J., H. van de Graaf, and R. Hoppe. 1997. Technology assessment through interaction: A guide. Working document W57. The Hague, the Netherlands: Rathenau Institute.
11.
Grundahl, Johs. 1995. The Danish consensus conference model. In Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe, edited by Simon Joss and John Durant, 31-40. London: Science Museum (with the support of the European Commission Directorate General XII).
12.
Guston, David H.1997. Critical appraisal in science and technology policy analysis: The example of Science, the endless frontier. Policy Sciences30 (4): 233-255.
13.
Guston, David H.1999. Stabilizing the boundary between U.S. politics and science: The role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science29 (1): 87-112.
14.
Hackman, Sandra. 1997. First line: And now a word from your neighbors. Technology Review100:5.
15.
Hamstra, Anneke. 1995. The role of the public in instruments of constructive technology assessment. In Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe, edited by Simon Joss and John Durant, 53-66. London: Science Museum (with the support of the European Commission Directorate General XII).
16.
Herdman, Roger, and Jim Jensen. 1997. The OTA story: The agency perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change54 (2/3): 131-144.
17.
Jørgensen, Torgen. 1995. Consensus conferences in the health care sector. In Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe, edited by Simon Joss and John Durant, 17-29. London: Science Museum (with the support of the European Commission Directorate General XII).
18.
Joss, Simon. 1995. Evaluating consensus conferences: Necessity or luxury? In Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe, edited by Simon Joss and John Durant, 89-108. London: Science Museum (with the support of the European Commission Directorate General XII).
19.
Joss, Simon. 1998. Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: An impact study of consensus conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish public debate. Science and Public Policy25 (1): 2-22.
20.
Joss, Simon. 1999. Participation in parliamentary technology assessment: From theory to practice. In Parliaments and technology: The development of technology assessment in Europe, edited by Norman J. Vig and Herbert Paschen. Albany: State University of New York Press.
21.
Joss, Simon, and John Durant, eds. 1995. Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum (with the support of the European Commission Directorate General XII).
22.
Kingdon, John W.1995. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. 2d ed.New York: HarperCollins.
23.
Klüver, Lars. 1995. Consensus conferences at the Danish Board of Technology. In Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe, edited by Simon Joss and John Durant, 41-49. London: Science Museum (with the support of the European Commission Directorate General XII).
24.
Laird, Frank. 1993. Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decisionmaking. Science, Technology, & Human Values18 (3): 341-361.
25.
Lindblom, Charles E.1990. Inquiry and change: The troubled attempt to understand and shape society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26.
Lynn, Laurence E., Jr.1994. Public management research: the triumph of art over science. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management13 (2): 231-259.
27.
Majone, Giandomenico. 1989. Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
28.
Mayer, Igor, Jolanda de Vries, and Jac Geurts. 1995. An evaluation of the effects of participation in a consensus conference. In Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe, edited by Simon Joss and John Durant, 109-124. London: Science Museum (with the support of the European Commission Directorate General XII).
29.
Reed, Laura. 1997. Final report, Citizens’ Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy, November 1996-April 1997. Mimeo.
30.
Sclove, Richard. 1996. Town meetings for technology. Technology Review99 (5): 24-31.
31.
Shulock, Nancy. 1999. The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we do so much of it? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management18 (2): 226-244.
32.
Tebaldi, David. 1997. From the director. MassHumanitites, Fall, 2.
33.
Vig, Norman J., and Herbert Paschen, eds. 1999. Parliaments and technology: The development of technology assessment in Europe. Albany: State University of New York Press.
34.
Weiss, Carol H., ed. 1977. Using social research in public policy making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
35.
Wood, Fred B.1997. Lessons in technology assessment: methodology and management at OTA. Technological Forecasting and Social Change54 (2/3): 145-162.
36.
Wynne, Brian. 1992. Risk and social learning: Reification to engagement. In Social theories of risk, edited by Sheldon Krimsky and Dominic Golding, 275-297. Westport, CT: Praeger.
