Training on citizen engagement in policy-relevant science, technology and innovation : Sarajevo 12 -13 October 2017 @ Rektorat, Univerzitet u Sarajevu Obala Kulina Bana 7/II, 71000 Sarajevo, BiH.
Date: 2017-11-27
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, adult education, case study, enlargement of the Union, innovation, knowledge management, research report, scientific cooperation, scientific research, technology

Training on Citizen Engagement 
in Policy-relevant Science, 
Technology and Innovation 

Sarajevo 12 -13 October 2017 

@ Rektorat, Univerzitet u Sarajevu 

Obala Kulina Bana 7/II, 71000 Sarajevo, BiH 

2017 

EUR 28789 EN 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This publication is a Training booklet by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science 
and knowledge service. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European 
Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is 
responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. 

Contact information  
Address: Joint Research Centre, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, TP 361, 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy 
Email: jrc-sts@jrc.ec.europa.eu 

JRC Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC108389 

EUR 28789 EN 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-79-73641-4 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2760/714618 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 

© European Union, 2017 

Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The reuse policy of European Commission documents 
is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). 

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must be 
sought directly from the copyright holders. 

How to cite this report: European Commission, Citizen Engagement in policy relevant Science, Technology and 
Innovation, EUR 28789 EN, European Commission, Luxembourg, 2017, ISBN 978-92-79-73641-4, 
doi:10.2760/714618, PUBSY No. 180389. 

All images © European Union, 2017 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
i 

Agenda 

12th October 2017 

13th October 2017 

08:30   Registration  

09:00  Module 3: Methodologies 

 Exercise 4 

09:00   Welcome and Introduction to the 

10:30  

Break 

training 

09:10 

Introduction of participants  

11:00  Module 

4: 
engagement 

Group work  

Planning 

citizen 

09:45  Module 

1: 

Concepts 

and 

12:30  

Lunch 

perspectives on engagement I 

13:45   Module 4: Group work (Cont.)  

10:15  

Break 

15:15 

Presentations and discussion 

10:45   Module 

1: 

Concepts 

and 

17:00 

END 

perspectives on engagement II 

Exercise 1 

12:30 

Lunch 

13:45 

Exercise 2 

14:45   Module 2: Institutions of  

engagement  

15:45 

Break 

16:00  Module 2: Cont. and Exercise 3 

17:00   Discussion 

18:00  

END 

All lectures take place @ Rektorat, Univerzitet u Sarajevu Obala Kulina Bana 7/II, 71000, Sarajevo 

P a g e  | 1      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Organisation 

Organising Committee 

Ângela Guimarães Pereira 

Thomas Völker 

Alessia Ghezzi 

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/science-and-technology-studies 

European Commission 

DG Joint Research Centre 

JRC.I.2: The Science and Technology Studies Project @ the JRC [JRCXSTS] 

Contact point in Sarajevo 

Ammar Mirascija 

Head of Department for Science/ National H2020 Coordinator CSO and CNC   

Bosnia and Herzegovina EUREKA NIP and HLR Bosnia and Herzegovina  

Secretariat 

Susanna Loffelhölz 

Susanna.loffelholz@ec.europa.eu 

Web Science Hub 

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/event/training-course/public-engagement-about-science-technology-and-
innovation-mostar 

email 

jrc-sts@ec.europa.eu  

Twitter 

#JRC_STS 

P a g e  | 2      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

The Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission's science and knowledge service, 
is  playing  an  important  role  in  providing  scientific  and  technological  support  for  the 
European  Union  enlargement  and  integration  process  by  giving  scientific  and  technical 
support  to  countries  on  the  road  towards  EU  membership,  New  Member  States  and 
Associated Countries to the Research Framework Programmes. 

In  the  framework  of  its  Enlargement  and  Integration  Action,  JRC 
in 
collaboration  with  the  Ministry  of  Civil  Affairs  of  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  this  "Training  on 
citizen  engagement  in  Policy  relevant  Science,  Technology  and  Innovation",  in  Sarajevo  on 
12th-13th October 2017. 

is  organizing 

Creating  the  conditions  for  genuine  engagement  of  citizens  and  other  societal  actors  in 
matters of their concern where science and technology are relevant is an issue of increasing 
political  attention;  not  least  because  the  diffusion  of  “low  cost”  and  “low  tech”  media 
through  which  citizens  can,  like  never  before,  express  opinions  and  concerns  calls  for 
institutional reflexivity. 

Yet, such background does not guarantee that citizens are actually engaged or their voices 
accounted  for.  There  has  been  an  effort  at  institutional  levels  to  walk  the  talk  of  societal 
engagement. For example,  European regulatory frameworks increasingly ask for citizens to 
be  engaged  in  the  policy  practices  of  their  institutions,  and  emerging  styles  of  governance 
include the call for more societal engagement. For example, the Responsible Research and 
Innovation (RRI) discourse that permeates the Horizon2020 research framework recognises 
excellence of science, technology and innovation dimensions that are beyond the traditional 
framings of excellence. 

Public engagement is one of the pillars of the RRI lemma, together with Ethics.  This training 
course responds to a concrete lack of genuine and legitimate places whereby institutions can 
explore insights, expectations and imaginaries of citizens in matters of concern to all.  This 
training  is  concerned  with  the  science  for  policy  realm  where  engagement  of  citizens  is 
needed  and  relevant  to  ensure  quality  of  policy  formulation  processes  in  situations 
described  in  the  framework  of  “post-normal  science”  where  “facts  uncertain,  values  in 
dispute,  stakes  high  and  decisions  urgent".  This  training  will  look  into  participatory 
approaches to discuss science and technology developments as well as discuss what makes 
trustful relationships between the scientific community and the public trustworthy. 

In a nutshell this training offers a hands-on reflection on the theoretical and regulatory basis 
as  well  as  methods  of  citizen  engagement.  It  aims  at  any  practitioners  that  work  at  the 
interface of science, society and policy. 

Activities: 

The course is grounded on developments and insights in the field of Post-normal Science and 
Science and Technology Studies. 

P a g e  | 3      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
The approaches that we will present and discuss can help different practitioners (scientists, 
policy makers, etc.) to address many challenges by providing techniques for re-thinking in a 
deliberative and participatory manner the social and ethical underpinnings of their work. 

STS makes use of a range of  – primarily - qualitative formats for doing this. It is guided by 
principles that have been developed, in part, in the context of fostering citizen participation 
and deliberation. 

The  training  will  start  by  looking  at  the  practice  of  public  engagement  in  Europe,  in  all  its 
forms  from  invited  to  non-invited  forms,  including  emerging  movements  such  as  citizen 
science,  do-it-yourself  research  and  community  based  initiatives,  as  well  as  discursive  and 
material methods to engage citizens in dialogues about science and technology. 

The training is organized into 4 main modules: 

1.  Engagement in perspective  
2.  Institutions of engagement  
3.  Methodologies 
4.  Planning  

The participants will work on a case throughout the course that interests the region in which 
the course is held. 

Welcome to Sarajevo! 

Ângela Guimarães Pereira, Thomas Völker and Alessia Ghezzi 

October 2017 

P a g e  | 4      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Notes: 

P a g e  | 5      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
Module 1: Engagement in perspective 
Concepts and perspectives on engagement I & II 

Currently  the  need  for  a  change  in  science-policy-society  relations  is  high  on  the  agenda  of 
governance  and  research  institutions.  Current  ideas  of  how,  when  and  why  to  engage  citizens, 
however,  build  on several decades  of  discussion  and  several  shifts  in  focus.  In this  module we  will 
introduce these debates and its main arguments by asking two broader questions:  

1.  Why do we need engagement? 
2.  How to understand citizen engagement/public participation? 

Asking  these  questions  the  module  will  touch  on  several  debates  and  literatures  to  introduce 
different ways in which the need for citizen engagement activities as a part of governance has been 
justified  and  established.  Additionally  the  module  will  introduce  different  approaches  towards 
engagement  to  show  the  multiple  ways  in  which  citizens  can  become  part  of  decision-making 
processes in science and governance. 

This  module  will  finish  with  two  hands-on  group  exercises  in  which  the  participants  can  put  the 
different concepts and ideas discussed in this module to use. 

Exercise 1 will focus on policy papers about citizen engagement. The participants will discuss a range 
of different policy documents from different time periods and different government bodies. After a 
close  reading  of  selected  segments  of  these  documents  they  will  discuss  different  implicit 
conceptions  of  citizens,  scientists,  experts  and  policy  makers  as  well  as  their  relation  to  the 
governance process. 

In  exercise  2  the  participants  will  examine  a  range  of  engagement  projects.  They  will  discuss  the 
different foci, strengths and potential weaknesses of the approaches. Additionally they will look for 
different  conceptions  of  what  ‘participation’  means  within  the  approaches  towards  engagement 
manifest in the projects. 

Readings: 

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners, 
35(4), 216-224.  

Chilvers,  J.,  &  Kearnes,  M.  (2015).  Remaking  participation:  Science,  environment  and  emergent 
publics: Routledge. 

Epstein, S. (1998). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge (Vol. 7): University of 
California Press. 

Felt, U., & Fochler, M. (2010). Machineries for Making Publics: Inscribing and De-scribing Publics in 
Public Engagement. Minerva, 48(3). 

Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1992). Three Types of Risk Assessment and the Emergence of Post-Normal 
Science. Westport: Praeger. 

Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1993). Science for the Post-Normal Age. Futures, 25(7), 739-757.  

Gibbons,  M.,  Limoges,  C.,  Nowotny,  H.,  Schwartzman,  S.,  Scott,  P.,  &  Trow,  M.  (1994).  New 
Production  of  Knowledge:  Dynamics  of  Science  and  Research  in  Contemporary  Societies.  London, 
Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications. 

P a g e  | 6      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
Hessels, L. K., & Lente, H. v. (2008). Re-Thinking New Knowledge Production: A Literature Review and 
a Research Agenda. Research Policy, 37(2008), 740-760.  

Michael, M. (2012). “What Are We Busy Doing?” Engaging the Idiot.  Science, Technology & Human 
Values, 37(5), 528-554.  

Michael,  M.  (2009).  Publics  performing  publics:  of  PiGs,  PiPs  and  politics.  Public  Understanding  of 
Science, 18(5), 617-631. 

Marres,  N.  (2012).  Material  participation:  technology,  the  environment  and  everyday  publics: 
Palgrave Macmillan. 

Nowotny,  H., Scott, P., &  Gibbons, M. (2001).  Re-thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an 
Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press. 

Rabeharisoa, V., & Callon, M. (2004). Patients and Scientists in French Muscular Dystrophy Research. 
In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 142-160). 
New York: Routledge. 

P a g e  | 7      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
 
 
Module 2: Institutions of engagement 

This module will delve on current regulation and spaces that call for citizen engagement in processes 
where science and specialised information are relevant.  

President  Juncker’s  inaugural  guidelines  called  for  deepening  the  dialogue  between  society  and 
European institutions, vowing to be “a President of social dialogue”1. The communication from the 
Commission on “Better regulation for better results - An EU agenda”  2 can be seen as a response to 
this call. It appeals for openness, scrutiny, deeper and more effective stakeholder consultation, new 
forms of engagement processes of relevant actors and more proximity to European citizens when it 
comes to design policies that affect us all. 

include  citizen  engagement  but  the 
The  current  regulatory  wave  very  much  attempts  to 
institutionalisation of engagement is not a straightforward endeavour – see for example the (OECD, 
2009)3.  As  expressed  in  an  expert  group  to the  EC, “citizens  have  a  right-  and  are  expected-  to  be 
involved in the crucial decisions of what their futures will look like and how science and technology 
can contribute to its betterment”4. Yet, citizens’ disbeliefs that their voices might be unheard are a 
sign for institutions to work on their promises and commitments. 

This  lecture  will  give  insights  into  European  regulation  framework  and  initiatives  where  public 
engagement is suggested or mandatory. We will discuss both positive and negative examples of it, 
through different EU directives and other initiatives, such as for example the Responsible Research 
and Innovation lemma of the current EU Framework of research, Horizon 2020.  

This module will include exercises and discussion on this topic. 

Readings:  

Burall,  S.,  Hughes,  T.  &  Stilgoe,  J.  (2013).  Experts,  publics  and  open  policy-making:  Opening  the 
windows and doors of Whitehall. Sciencewise report. 

Bussu, S. (2015). The public’s voice on regulation. Sciencewise report. 

Colbourne, L. (2008). Different approaches to engagement: How much do we need, When? And how 
much does it cost? DEFRA 

De Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S., Guimarães Pereira, A. (2001). From the right to be informed to the right 
to participate: responding to the evolution of European legislation with ICT. International Journal of 
Environment and Pollution, 15(1): 1-21. 

EU documents: 

1 http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/docs/pg_en.pdf 
2 SWD(2015) 110 final 
3OECD, 

2009. 

Next 

The 

challenge 

for 

Citizen 

Engagement: 

institutionalization. 

Available 

at: 

http://www.oecd.org/gov/focusoncitizenspublicengagementforbetterpolicyandservices.htm 

4 “The Role of Community Research Policy in the Knowledge-based Economy”, p.37 

P a g e  | 8      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
 
                                           
Communication  from  the  commission  to  the  European  parliament,  the  council,  the  European 
economic and social committee and the committee of the regions (2015) 215. Better regulation for 
better results- An EU agenda. 

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing 
a framework for Community action in the field of water policy 

Directive  2003/4/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  28  January  2003  on  public 
access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC  

Directive  2007/60/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  October  2007  on  the 
assessment and management of flood risks 

Directive  2011/92/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13 December  2011 on  the 
assessment  of  the  effects of  certain  public  and  private  projects  on the environment  Text  with  EEA 
relevance 

The European Citizens’ initiative: http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/welcome 

2020. 

Horizon 
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/public-engagement-responsible-
research-and-innovation 

integrating 

Science 

Society 

Innovation: 

and 

Call 

for 

in 

Rome 
in 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/rome_declaration_RRI_final_21_November.pdf 

Responsible 

Declaration 

Innovation 

Research 

and 

on 

Europe: 

P a g e  | 9      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
Module 3: Methodologies 
The third module of this training will focus on methodologies to engage citizens. It will draw 
from examples in the literature. It is intended to be very practical, explaining with examples 
where such methodologies have been experimented, exploring ideas of situatedeness and 
degrees of citizen power. It will have a special focus on material deliberation methods. 
Exercises will be carried out. 

Readings: 

Boucher  P.,  Nascimento  S.,  Vesnic  Alujevic  L.,  Guimarães  Pereira,  Â.  2014.  Ethics  dialogues. 
Experiencing Ethics through ‘things’: Open IoT, Civil Drones and Wearable Sensors. Publications Office 
of 
at: 
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC93162 

European 

Available 

27060. 

Union. 

EUR 

the 

Broadwood, J. 2012 Arts & Kindness. People United, London. (pages 18-25) 

http://www.pdsw.org.uk/assets/Uploads/Breathe-Arts-Kindness-Report-People-United-report-
2012.pdf  

Cohen-Cruz,  J.  2012  Engaging  performance:  Theatre  as  call  and  response.  New  York:  Routledge. 
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Engaging-Performance-Theatre-call-response-
ebook/dp/B008SA2FOS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1433761434&sr=8-1&keywords=Cohen-
Cruz%2C+Engaging  

Fals Borda, O. (1985). Knowledge  and  people's power:  Lessons with peasants  in Nicaragua, Mexico 
and  Colombia.  In  Knowledge  and  people's  power:  lessons  with  peasants  in  Nicaragua,  Mexico  and 
Colombia. Indian Social Institute. 

http://multiworldindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Knowledge-and-peoples-power1.pdf 

Fricker, M. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. New York: Oxford University Press, 
2007.  Podcast at: http://philosophybites.com/2007/06/miranda_fricker.html  

Guimarães Pereira, Â., Wakeford, T., Crespo, I., Curvelo, P., Davies, S., De Marchi, B., Vesnić-Alujević, 
L.,  Public  Engagement  in  Science  and  Technology  –  Setting  the  Scene.  European  Commission.  JRC 
872755 

Lee, C 2015 Do-It-Yourself Democracy: The Rise of the Public Engagement Industry [Kindle Edition] 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Do---Yourself-Democracy-Engagement-Industry-
ebook/dp/B00O0URMUC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1433761359&sr=8-
1&keywords=lee+public+engagement 

Midgley  M  2014  Science  and  the 
http://coventryuniversity.podbean.com/category/critical-thinking/.    

imagination: 

Interview  by  Tom  Wakeford,  Podcast  at 

Nascimento, S., Guimarães Pereira, Â., Ghezzi, A. 2014. From Citizen Science to Do It Yourself Science 
An  annotated  account  of  an  on-going  movement.  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union.  EUR 
27095. Available at: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC93942. 

Pimbert  MP,  Barry  B,  Berson  A,  Tran-Thanh  K:  Democratising  Agricultural  Research  for  Food 
Sovereignty in West Africa.  IIED; 2010. Available at: http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/14603IIED.pdf 

5  This  report  is  available  at  request  form  jrc-sts@ec.europa.eu  and  contains  comprehensive  bibliography  on 

public engagement. 

P a g e  | 10      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
                                           
Selin,  C.  and  Pillen  Banks,  J.  2014.  Futurescape  City  Tours.  A  Novel  Method  for  Civic  Engagement. 
CNS-ASU. 
at: 
http://www.cynthiaselin.com/uploads/4/6/5/7/4657243/futurescapes_full_web_r4.pdf.  

Available 

Strand, R., Spaapen, J., Bauer, M.W., Hogan, E., Revuelta, G., Stagl, S., Paula, L. Guimarães Pereira, Â. 
2015. Indicators for promoting and monitoring Responsible Research and Innovation. Report from the 
Expert Group on Policy Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation. Publications Office of the 
European 
at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_rri/rri_indicators_final_version.pdf.  

Available 

Union. 

26866 

EUR 

EN. 

Science  Communication  Unit,  University  of  the  West  of  England,  Bristol.  Science  for  Environment 
Policy In-depth Report: Environmental Citizen Science. Report produced for the European Commission 
at: 
DG 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/IR9.pdf  

Environment, 

December 

Available 

2013. 

Visvanathan, S. 2009 The search for cognitive justice.  

http://www.india-seminar.com/2009/597/597_shiv_visvanathan.htm  

Wakeford  T,  Pimbert  M:  Opening  participatory  democracy’s  black  box:  Facilitation  as  creative 
bricolage.    In  Problems  of  Participation:  Reflections  on  Authority,  Democracy,  and  the  Struggle  for 
Common Life.  Edited by Noorani T, Blencowe C, Brigstocke J. Authority Research Network; 2013: 69-
82. 
at: 
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/staff/academicstaff/blencowe/participation/problem
s_of_participation.pdf 

Available 

P a g e  | 11      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
 
 
Notes: 

P a g e  | 12      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
Module 4: Planning citizen engagement 
In this module we will talk about issues to take into consideration when organising citizen 
engagement. This will be a very practical module, where participants will be divided into groups and 
work in a case, preferably a case where they might be interested. 

P a g e  | 13      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
Biosketches 

Ângela Guimarães Pereira has been at the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission since 1992. She 
leads the ‘Science and technology studies’ project, contributing to European projects focused on environmental 
and societal policy issues,  future-oriented activities and public engagement. Post-normal  science inspires her 
work  on  governance  of  and  dialogues  about  science  and  technology.  She  has  authored  many  peer-reviewed 
publications and contributed to many books such as Arizona State University’s Consortium for Science, Policy 
and Outcomes The rightful place of science: science on the verge of 2016. Her interests lie in intersections of 
science with other forms of knowledge, such as the arts. Her favourite story is Hans Christian Andersen’s The 
emperor’s new clothes. she concluded her PhD with the New Univ. of Lisbon on environmental issues in 1998. 

Thomas  Völker  is  a  Science  and  Technology  Studies  scholar  and  a  postdoctoral  researcher  at  the  JRC.  In  his 
PhD-thesis  he  focused  on  practices  of  producing  and  circulating  anticipatory  knowledge  in  transdisciplinary 
sustainability research. Before that he has worked on questions of quality in science and on issues of mobility. 
Prior  to  joining  the  JRC  Thomas  worked  as  a  postdoctoral  researcher  at  the  Department  of  Science 
Communication  and  Higher  Education  Research  in  Vienna.  Before  that  he  spent  nearly  a  year  at  the  RWTH 
Aachen as a  guest researcher. During his time in Aachen Thomas  finished his PhD-thesis, most  of  which  was 
done at the Department of Science and Technology Studies of the University of Vienna as a part of a three-year 
research  project  called  ‘Transdisciplinary  as  Culture  and  Practice’.  Thomas  current  research  interests  include 
the spatialities and temporalities of participatory and collaborative research practices, future-making in science 
and  technology  and  the  role  of  anticipatory  knowledge  in  decision-making  processes.  Apart  from  that  he  is 
fascinated by Science Fiction novels and the multiple associations of SF and emerging technoscientific fields. 

Alessia Ghezzi works at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. Since graduating from the Sapienza 
University of Rome with a bachelor’s degree in Archival Science and a Master’s degree in Semantic Cataloguing 
and indexing, Alessia has worked as a  librarian and an archivist  at the state archives in Rome, at the Vatican 
Library  and  at  the  Constitutional  Court.  In  the  past  decade  she  has  worked  on  ethics  of  information 
technologies, namely on digital memories and their ethical implications, as well as Right to be forgotten. She is 
currently  working  on  the  ‘Science  and  technology  studies’  project  at  JRC  where  she  develops  and  deploys 
methods of citizen engagement in policy making around different societal issues.  

P a g e  | 14      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Notes: 

P a g e  | 15      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
 
Notes: 

P a g e  | 16      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 
This is a short snapshot of interesting bibliography in cases of citizen engagement. 

Barns  Ian  2000.  “What  Do  You  Think  about  Genetic  Medicine?”  Facilitating  Sociable  Public  Discourse  on 
Developments in the New Genetics 

Source: Science Technology Human Values  Summer 2000   vol. 25  no. 3  283-308 

Abstract and annotation: An important aspect of any meaningful public discussion about developments in gene 
technology is the provision of opportunities for interested publics to engage in sociable public discourse with 
other lay people and with experts. This article reports on a series of peer group conversations conducted in late 
1996  and  early  1997  with  sixteen  community  groups  in  Perth,  Western  Australia,  interested  in  gene  therapy 
technology. With the case of cystic fibrosis as a particular focus, and using background resource material as a 
stimulus for discussion, the participating groups explored a range of value issues arising from the new genetic 
medicine. This more discursive context enabled participants to express a number of background or life-world 
concerns about genetic medicine, concerns that are often obscured by the dominant biomedical and bioethical 
discourses. 

Bell, Sarah 2006. Concerned scientists, pragmatic politics and Australia's green drought 

Source: Science and Public Policy, Volume 33, Number 8, 1 October 2006 , pp. 561-570(10) 

Abstract  and  annotation:  The  Wentworth  Group  of  Concerned  Scientists  formed  in  Australia  in  2002  in 
response  to  calls  to  `drought-proof'  the  continent.  Their  model  of  engagement  between  science  and  public 
policy  involves:  clear  simple  science  communication,  which  keeps  scientific  uncertainty  and  debate  out  of 
public view; pragmatic politics, which works within rather than challenges the dominant political agenda; and a 
focus  on  providing  solutions  rather  than  describing  problems.  This  model  has  been  successful  in  achieving 
policy reform at the expense of more participatory and critical approaches to ecological science and politics.  

This paper goes beyond the “Public Understanding of Science” model of involving society in scientific debates. 

P a g e  | 17      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Brulle,  Robert  J..  2010.  From  Environmental  Campaigns  to  Advancing  the  Public  Dialog:  Environmental 
Communication for Civic Engagement 

Source: Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture. Volume 4, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 82  - 
98 

Abstract  and  annotation:  This  essay  examines  the  claims  of  environmental  identity  campaigns  regarding  the 
issue of climate change. Identity campaigns are based on the idea that more effective environmental messages 
developed through the application of cognitive science by professional communications experts can favorably 
influence  public  opinion,  and  thus  support  legislative  action  to  remedy  this  issue.  Based  on  a  review  of  the 
sociological  and  psychological  literature  regarding  social  change  and  mobilization,  I  argue  that  while  this 
approach may offer short term advantages, it is most likely incapable of developing the large scale mobilization 
necessary to enact the massive social and economic changes necessary to address global warming. Specifically, 
theoretical and empirical research on the role of the public sphere, civil society and social movements shows 
that democratic civic engagement is core to successful social change efforts. However, identity campaigns focus 
on a communications process that centers on elite led one way communications, which falls to allow for any 
form of civic engagement and public dialogue. This undermines the creation of a democratic process of change 
and reinforces the professionalization of political discourse, leading to a weakening of the mobilization capacity 
over this issue of global warming. The essay concludes with the outlines of an environmental communication 
process that aims at enhancing civic engagement and democratic decision making. 

Bucchi, Massimiano.  1996. When scientists turn to the public: alternative routes in science communication 

Source: Public Understanding of Science October 1996 vol. 5 no. 4 375-394 

Abstract and annotation: This paper argues that both the traditional normative models and the more refined 
(`continuity') models of public communication of science fail to account adequately for cases of `deviation', i.e. 
those cases when scientists address the public directly by skipping the usual stages of scientific communication. 
It  is  hypothesized  that  most  of  such  cases  are  related  to  crisis  situations  and  to  the  definition  of  scientific 
boundaries. Therefore, at least two modalities of public communication of science should be distinguished: one 
is  the  routine,  generally  unproblematic  itinerary  of  a  scientific  idea  through  the  different  levels  of 
communication  as  presented  by  the  continuity  models;  and  the  other  is  the  dramatic  (re)assessment  of 
boundaries and professional competences in the public arena that is required by marginal situations. Continuity 
models need to be supplemented by a multilevel, multivariate model which enables us to explain this second 
modality and to understand in more detail the role that the level of  public communication plays when such a 
modality is activated. 

P a g e  | 18      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Carvalho,  Mónica,  Carvalho,  Ana  Sofia,  Araújo,  Joana,  Brites,  Marta.  2010.  Between  scientists  and  public: 
reframing public participation in science through bioethics 

Source: IAMCR CONFERENCE, COMMUNICATION AND CITIZENSHIP, Braga, Portugal, 18-22 July, 2010 - Book 
of  Abstracts:  [WG]  Ethics  of  Society  and  Communication.  Paper  available  at  http://iamcr.org/conference-
abstracts 

Abstract  and  annotation:  Discourses  and  techniques  about  the  relationship  between  science  and  the  public 
have remarkably developed in the past four decades. Science communication has become an important issue 
for  the  scientific  governance.  Public  confidence  in  science,  decision-making  and  support  to  democracy  have 
changed  the  predominance  of  a  top-down  communication  model,  from  scientists  to  public,  to  a  more 
participative one – the Public Engagement with Science (PES). The Institute of Bioethics at Portuguese Catholic 
University, in Oporto, is doing research in the role of science in society issues and the aim of this paper is to 
discuss  the  relevance  of  Bioethics  to  improve  PES.  The  bioethical  issues  seem  to  draw  people’  attention  to 
certain  scientific  facts,  confronting  them  with  the  consequences  of  science  and  improving  their  skills  in 
deliberating  on  scientific  issues.  Moreover,  ethics  influences  the  way  one  understands  public  engagement, 
“scientific citizenship‟ or “science governance‟. The role of ethics is not  to re-edit the  old fashionable deficit 
perspective,which  usually  focuses  on  the  impact  of  science  and  technology  from  the  perspective  of  non-
experts. Ethics is a theoretical and practical reference for changing the science-making in the near future, and it 
makes  us  consider  the  public  as  playing  a  more  important  role  than  that  of  mere  spectators  with  lack  of 
scientific knowledge or with emotional concerns. The ethical reflection could redefine the non-experts place in 
the context of science, involving people with science, making them not simply aware of scientific issues but also 
involved  in  the  process  of  decision-making.  On  the  other  hand,  bioethics  can  also  contribute  to  the 
participation  of  scientists  in  the  ethical  reflection  that  takes  place  outside  the  labs,  broadening  their  role  as 
citizen scientists. 

Davies, S. R. 2008. Constructing Communication. Talking to Scientists About Talking to the Public 

Source: Science Communication June 2008 vol. 29 no. 4 413-434 

Abstract  and annotation:  Recent  work has started to explore “scientific understandings of publics” alongside 
public  understandings  of  science.  This  study  builds  on  this  work  to  examine  the  ways  in  which  public 
communication  is  talked  about  by  scientists  and  engineers.  The  author  identifies  a  range  of  ways  of  talking 
about the purposes and content of science communication to the public, arguing that the dominant framework 
for  these  is  one-way  communication,  and  that,  in  addition,  such  communication  tends  to  be  constructed  as 
difficult and dangerous. However, the author further identifies a range of minority discourses that understand 
public communication in more complex terms. 

P a g e  | 19      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Davies, S., Ellen McCallie, and Elin Simonsson. 2009. Discussing dialogue: perspectives on the value of science 
dialogue events that do not inform policy 

Source: Public Understanding of Science May 2009 vol. 18 no. 3 338-353 

Abstract  and  annotation:  While  theoretical  work  and  empirical  research  have  examined  science  policy-
informing “dialogue events,” dialogue events that do not seek to inform public policy are under-theorized and 
under-researched, even though they are common and growing in popularity in the UK. We describe how, from 
a critical perspective, it may initially appear that such events cannot be justified without returning to the deficit 
model.  But  with  this  paper,  we  seek  to  open  up  a  discussion  about  these  non  policy-informing  events  by 
arguing that there are in fact further ways to understand and frame them. We deliberately draw on different 
literatures  and  seek  to  make  use  of  practitioner  expertise  within  our  discussion,  in  order  to  display  several 
perspectives  on  the  value  of  non-policy  dialogue  on  science  as  sites  of  symmetrical  individual  or  small-scale 
learning —rather than institutional learning—through social processes . 

Delgado,  A.,  Lein  Kjølberg,  K.  and  Wickson,  F.    2010.  Public  engagement  coming  of  age:  From  theory  to 
practice in sts encounters with nanotechnology 

Source: Public Understanding of Science May 11, 2010 

Abstract  and  annotation:  In  this  paper,  we  present  a  study  of  Science  and  Technology  Studies  (STS) 
perspectives on public engagement, specifically focusing on the gap between theory and practice. In aiming to 
develop a conceptual map of this gap, we identify five top topics of tension. These are related to the general 
questions  of:  “Why  should  we  do  public  engagement?,”  “Who  should  be  involved?,”  “How  should  it  be 
organised?,” “When should it be done?” and “Where should it be grounded?” We employ nanotechnology as a 
paradigmatic case to help us explore these tensions. In practice, the choices one makes in relation to one topic 
of  tension  may  influence  the  choices  available  for  others.  Enhanced  awareness  of  the  presence  of  these 
tensions,  as  well  as  their  interconnections,  can  help  build  reflexive  capacity  and  make  visible  the  various 
alternative routes available for STS practitioners working in the “age of engagement.”   

Durant,  John.  1999.  Participatory  technology  assessment  and  the  democratic  model  of  the  public 
understanding of science 

Source: Science and Public Policy, Volume 26, Number 5, 1 October 1999 , pp. 313-319(7) 

Abstract  and  annotation:  It  seems  that  the  general  public  is  somewhat  disillusioned  with  science  and 
technology  and  is  demanding  greater  participation  in  important  decisions  as  to  their  application  in  everyday 
life. Ideals of equality between scientists and non-scientists and of informed public debate as the preconditions 
for  forging  socially  sustainable  public  policies  need  to  be  translated  into  new  processes  of  deliberative 
democracy. 

P a g e  | 20      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Gregory, J. and Simon Jay Lock. 2009. The Evolution of ‘Public Understanding of Science’: Public Engagement 
as a Tool of Science Policy in the UK 

Source: Sociology Compass. Volume 2, Issue 4, pages 1252–1265, July 2008  

Abstract  and  annotation:  This  historical  review  surveys  the  evolution  of  the  science–society  relationship  in 
post-war  Britain.  It  observes  the  transformation  since  the  1980s  of  the  idea  of  ‘public  understanding  of 
science’, in which scientists and laypeople differ by virtue of the scientific knowledge they have, into the idea of 
‘public engagement which science’, in which scientists, laypeople and policy makers negotiate policy for future 
science and technology. We survey recent critiques of public engagement which draw attention to the ways in 
which it constructs particular publics, and which question its capacity to contribute to policy-making. 

Hails,  Rosie  &  Julian  Kinderlerer  2003.  Science  and  society:  The  GM  public  debate:  context  and 
communication strategies 

Source: Nature Reviews Genetics 4, 819-825 (October 2003)  

Abstract  and  annotation:  Science  communication  is  developing  a  new  approach  that  promotes  dialogue 
between scientists and the public. A recent example is the debate on the possible introduction of genetically 
modified crops into the United Kingdom. As this exercise in public engagement draws to a close, we consider 
the context in which this debate has taken place, and the challenges of developing such interactions between 
science and society. 

Hellsten,  I.,  James  Dawson,  Loet  Leydesdorff.  2010.  Implicit  media  frames:  Automated  analysis  of  public 
debate on artificial sweeteners 

Source: Public Understanding of Science September 2010 vol. 19 no. 5 590-608 

Abstract  and  annotation:  The  framing  of  issues  in  the  mass  media  plays  a  crucial  role  in  the  public 
understanding  of  science  and  technology.  This  article  contributes  to  research  concerned  with  the  analysis  of 
media frames over time by making an analytical distinction between implicit and explicit media frames, and by 
introducing an automated method for the analysis of implicit frames. In particular, we apply a semantic maps 
method to a case study on the newspaper debate about artificial sweeteners, published in the New York Times 
between 1980 and 2006. Our results show that the analysis of  semantic changes  enables us to filter out  the 
dynamics of implicit frames, and to detect emerging metaphors in public debates. Theoretically, we discuss the 
relation between implicit frames in public debates and the codification of meaning and information in scientific 
discourses,  and  suggest  further  avenues  for  research  interested  in  the  automated  analysis  of  frame  changes 
and trends in public debates. 

P a g e  | 21      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Irwin,  A.  2008.  Risk,  Science  and  Public  Communication:  third-order  thinking  about  scientific  culture.  In 
Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London & New York: Routledge. 

Abstract and annotation: This chapter explores some different ways of thinking about science communication 
and risk management. In certain contexts, there has been a transition from ‘first order’ (or deficit) models of 
science-public relations to a greater emphasis on public engagement and dialogue (discussed here as ‘second 
order’  thinking);  The  chapter  especially  addresses  certain  problematic  and  challenging  aspects  of  this  partial 
movement  between  first  and  second  order  approaches.  ‘Third  order’  thinking  about  risk,  science  and  public 
communication  asks  fundamental  questions  about  the  underlying  relationship  between  ‘first’  and  ‘second’ 
order approaches, the changes that have taken place (both in theory and practice) and the future direction of 
scientific  governance  and  science  communication;  It  is  important  to  emphasise  that  first,  second  and  third 
order thinking are not presented here as distinct historical stages nor as an inevitable sequence. This is not a 
story of one way of thinking inevitably giving way to the next and then the next. Instead, the situation in most 
national  and  local  contexts  is  of  these  different  ‘orders’  being  mixed  up  (or  churned)  together.  The  deficit 
model co-exists with talk of dialogue and engagement. While some organisations and individuals look for quick 
and  easy  solutions  to  communication  problems,  others  have  begun  to  reflect  upon  the  inherent  limitations, 
contextualities and conditionalities of both deficit and dialogue; Importantly, not all parties will agree on any 
particular  categorisation:  what  one  party  might  view  as  ‘engagement’  can  often  be  seen  as  top-down 
communication  by  another  (especially  if  disappointed  with  the  outcome).  Thus,  social  experiments  in  ‘public 
engagement’  very  often  lead  to  accusations  that  the  exercise  was  too  restricted,  too  short  and  insufficiently 
democratic.  From  the  perspective  of  this  chapter,  such  accusations  do  not  invalidate  initiatives  but  can 
represent an essential resource within the public scrutiny of socio-technical change; This chapter presents the 
public  communication  of  science  and  technology  as  more  than  a  matter  of  communication  style.  Instead, 
through  the  device  of  ‘third-order  thinking’,  we  confront  basic  issues  of  the  shaping  and  direction  of  socio-
technical change, the frameworks within which communication takes place, cultures of governance and control 
(especially relating to the institutions of science) and the choices which are available to citizens within modern 
democracies. 

Kahan, Dan 2010. Fixing the communications failure.  

Source: Nature 463, 296-297 (21 January 2010) 

Abstract  and  annotation:  The  author  argues  that  people's  grasp  of  scientific  debates  can  improve  if 
communicators build on the fact that cultural values influence what and whom we believe. In a famous 1950s 
psychology  experiment,  researchers  showed  students  from  two  Ivy  League  colleges  a  film  of  an  American 
football game between their schools in which officials made a series of controversial decisions against one side. 
Asked  to  make  their  own  assessments,  students  who  attended  the  offending  team's  college  reported  seeing 
half as many illegal plays as did students from the opposing institution. 

P a g e  | 22      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Leydesdorff, Loet and Lina Hellsten. 2005. Metaphors and Diaphors in Science Communication - Mapping the 
Case of Stem Cell Research.  

Source: Science Communication September 2005 vol. 27 no. 1 64-99 

Abstract  and  annotation:  “Stem  cell  research”  has  become  a  subject  of  political  discussion  in  recent  years 
because  of  its  social  and  ethical  implications.  The  intellectual  research  program,  however,  has  a  history  of 
several  decades.  Therapeutic  applications  and  patents  on  the  basis  of  stem  cell  research  became  available 
during the 1990s. Currently, the main applications of stem cell research are found in marrow transplantation 
(e.g., for the treatment of leukemia). In this study, the various meanings of the term stem cell are examined in 
these  different  contexts  of  research,  applications,  and  policy  debates.  Translation  mechanisms  between 
contexts are specified, and a quantitative indicator for the degree of codification is proposed. 

Libutti L. and A. Valente. Science Communication, Information and Participatory Methodologies: Key Success 
Factors in a Public Debate on the Freshwater Crisis. 

Source: The Open Information Science Journal, 2008, 1, 10-14 

Abstract  and  annotation:  The  article  considers  how  discrete  disciplines  such  as  documentary  research, 
participatory methodologies and the public communication of science can, if used synergistically, provide the 
necessary  elements  for  a  public  debate  on  a  scientific  issue  of  current  interest.  In  this  instance,  the  debate 
formed  part  of  a  CNR-  British  Council,  Rome  branch  and  the  Civil  Protection  Department  project  for  the 
communication of science to young people, and the theme chosen for discusión was the freshwater crisis. It is 
important  to  ensure  that  schools  offer  suitable  learning  environments  and  provide  innovative  teaching 
techniques to encourage students to explore the social dimensions of the scientific issues they are dealing with. 

Macnaghten,  Phil,  Matthew  B.  Kearnes  and  Brian  Wynne.  2005.  Nanotechnology,  Governance,  and  Public 
Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences? 

Source: Science Communication December 2005 vol. 27 no. 2 268-291 

Abstract and annotation: In this article we argue that nanotechnology represents an extraordinary opportunity 
to  build  in  a  robust  role  for  the  social  sciences  in  a  technology  that  remains  at  an  early,  and  hence 
undetermined,  stage  of  development.  We  examine  policy  dynamics  in  both  the  United  States  and  United 
Kingdom aimed at both opening up, and closing down, the role of the social sciences in nanotechnologies. We 
then  set  out  a  prospective  agenda  for  the  social  sciences  and  its  potential  in  the  future  shaping  of 
nanotechnology research and innovation processes. The emergent, undetermined nature of nanotechnologies 
calls for an open, experimental, and interdisciplinary model of social science research. 

P a g e  | 23      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nisbet,  Matthew  C.  and  Dietram  A.  Scheufele.  2009.  What’s  next  for  science  communication?  Promising 
directions and lingering distractions. 

Source: American Journal of Botany 96: 1767-1778 

Abstract and annotation: In this essay, the authors review research from the social sciences on how the public 
makes  sense  of  and  participates  in  societal  decisions  about  science  and  technology.  We  specifically  highlight 
the role of the media and public communication in this process, challenging the still dominant assumption that 
science  literacy  is  both  the  problem  and  the  solution  to  societal  conflicts.  After  reviewing  the  cases  of 
evolution,  climate  change,  food  biotechnology,  and  nanotechnology,  we  offer  a  set  of  detailed 
recommendations for improved public engagement efforts on the part of scientists and their organizations. We 
emphasize the need for science communication initiatives that are guided by careful formative research; that 
span  a  diversity  of  media  platforms  and  audiences;  and  that  facilitate  conversations  with  the  public  that 
recognize, respect, and incorporate differences in knowledge, values, perspectives, and goals. 

Pace, Michael L, Stephanie E Hampton, Karin E Limburg, Elena M Bennett, Elizabeth M Cook, Ann E Davis, J 
Morgan  Grove,  Kenneth  Y  Kaneshiro,  Shannon  L  LaDeau,  Gene  E  Likens,  Diane  M  McKnight,  David  C 
Richardson,  and  David  L  Strayer.  2010.  Communicating  with  the  public:  opportunities  and  rewards  for 
individual ecologists.  

Source:  Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8: 292–298. 

Abstract  and  annotation:  Many  ecologists  are  interested  in  communicating  science  to  the  public  and 
addressing  societal  concerns  about  environmental  issues.  Individual  ecologists  need  to  consider  whether, 
when, and how this should be done. We propose that public outreach activities can be beneficial for ecologists 
at  all  stages  of  their  career.  There  are  diverse  opportunities  for  such  involvement,  and  these  can  vary 
enormously in terms of time and expertise required. Trends within the science of ecology, especially research 
focused on social–ecological systems, are likely to promote increased interactions with stakeholders and policy 
makers.  To  be  effective  in  these  interactions,  ecologists  should  consider  new  approaches  to  communication 
and be aware of the potential roles scientists can play in public policy debates. Professional ecologists need to 
engage  with  non-scientific  audiences;  a  review  of  such  activities  should  be  included  in  considerations  for 
promotion,  recognition,  and  awards,  while  also  acknowledging  variations  in  the  inclinations  and  abilities  of 
individual scientists. There are, however, few current standards for how much time ecologists should commit 
to  public  outreach,  how  time  allocation  might  change  over  a  career,  or  how  to  evaluate  the  quality  of  such 
activities. We ask ecologists to consider ways to evaluate the quality of interactions with the public and how to 
reward these efforts appropriately. 

P a g e  | 24      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Priest,  Susanna Hornig 1994. Structuring Public Debate on Biotechnology 

Media Frames and Public Response.  

Source: Science Communication  December 1994   vol. 16  no. 2  166-179 

Abstract  and  annotation:  A  study  of  themes  arising  within  focus  group  discussions  of  U.S.  lay  publics  (both 
student  and  nonstudent  adults)  in  response  to  newspaper  coverage  of  biotechnology  is  consistent  with  the 
assertion  that  media  frames  and  reader  schemas  interact  to  produce  an  understanding  of  a  newly  emerging 
issue. Newspaper coverage heavily dominated by institutional sources and dealing with only a narrow range of 
issues may be limiting the terms of public debate in an unhealthy way. Readers reason by analogy with related 
and  sometimes  unrelated  developments  in  trying  to  understand  biotechnology,  based  on  schemas  reflecting 
their general understanding of science. 

Schäfer, M. S. 2008.  From Public Understanding to Public Engagement: An Empirical Assessment of Changes 
in Science Coverage 

Source: Science Communication November 26, 2008 

Abstract  and  annotation:  Science  communication  is  said  to  have  changed  in  the  past  decades.  It  is  widely 
assumed that science is no longer merely transported and translated by the mass media to a passive audience, 
but  “medialized”:  Many  authors  believe  that  scientific  issues  are  discussed  extensively  in  the  mass  media 
nowadays, that these discussions are plural in its participants and in the arguments used, and that the issues at 
stake are evaluated controversially. It is still unclear, however, if this change applies to all science topics or only 
to some. The article at hand argues that science issues from different epistemic cultures can be expected to be 
“medialized”  to  different  extents,  and  analyzes  mass  media  coverage  on  stem  cell  research,  human  genome 
research,  and  neutrino  research  to  underline  this  claim.  The  findings  show  that  the  described  change  only 
applies to some issues, and that further differentiation of the concept of “medialization” is necessary. 

P a g e  | 25      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
P a g e  | 26      Training on Citizen Engagement in Policy-relevant Science, Technology and Innovation   

 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the 
address of the centre nearest you at: http://europea.eu/contact 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this 
service: 

- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 

- by electronic mail via: http://europa.eu/contact 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa 
website at: http://europa.eu 

EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: 
http://bookshop.europa.eu. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe 
Direct or your local information centre (see http://europa.eu/contact). 

 
 
 
 
K
J
-
N
A
-
2
8
7
8
9
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10.2760/714618 

ISBN 978-92-79-3641-4