IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v36y2009i5p335-347.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The National Citizens' Technology Forum: lessons for the future

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Philbrick
  • Javiera Barandiaran

Abstract

The recently completed National Citizens' Technology Forum (NCTF) was the first nationwide consensus conference in the US. This paper argues that the exercise serves as a proof-of-concept for this mode of public participation in the governance of emerging technologies. The NCTF demonstrated the feasibility of conducting such exercises across three time zones, and illustrated the compatibility of the consensus conference process with American political norms in practice. It provides additional evidence that, given a structured, constructive environment for deliberation, and access to information and expertise, lay citizens can and do produce policy-relevant recommendations in highly technical arenas. Finally, the experience indicates opportunities for future improvements in integrating input from the public, stakeholders, and experts into the policy-making process. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Philbrick & Javiera Barandiaran, 2009. "The National Citizens' Technology Forum: lessons for the future," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(5), pages 335-347, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:36:y:2009:i:5:p:335-347
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234209X442052
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:36:y:2009:i:5:p:335-347. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.