Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

The limits of ‘upstream’ public engagement:\ud citizens’ panels and deliberation over hydrogen energy technologies

By R Flynn, P Bellaby and M Ricci
Topics: T1, HM, other
OAI identifier: oai:usir.salford.ac.uk:2617

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2007b) ‘Citizen engagement processes as information systems: the role of knowledge and the concept of translation quality’,
  2. (1999). A model for an analytic-deliberative process in risk management’,
  3. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms’,
  4. (2007). Against the stream: moving public engagement on nanotechnologies upstream’,
  5. (2008). Articulating contextualised knowledge: focus groups and/as public participation?’,
  6. (2004). Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions: evidence from waste management’,
  7. (2007). Constructing responsibilities for risk: negotiating citizen-state relationships’,
  8. (2007). Cultural enthusiasm, resistance and the societal embedding of new technologies’, doi
  9. (2008). Democratising Engagement,
  10. (1999). Developing Focus Group Research,
  11. (2008). Dynamic effects on the acceptance of hydrogen technologies – an international comparison’,
  12. (2008). Environmental citizenship and public attitudes to hydrogen energy technologies’, doi
  13. (2007). Existing acceptance analysis in the field of hydrogen technologies’, Work Package 1, Task 1, Deliverable 1.6, College of Europe, Roads2HyCom (R2H1007PU): downloaded 18/6/07 from http://www.roads2hycom/Downlaods/Roads2HyCom Geels, F
  14. (2001). Focus Groups in Social Research Sage,
  15. (2006). Forecasts, scenarios, backcasts and roadmaps to the hydrogen economy: a review of the hydrogen futures literature’,
  16. (2009). in press) ‘Public attiudes towards and demand for hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles: a review of the evidence and methodological implications’,
  17. (2007). Industrial constructions of publics and public knowledge: a qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry’,
  18. (2006). Introducing Hydrogen as an energy carrier: safety, regulatory and public acceptance issues, Report for the Director-General for Research Sustainable Energy Systems,
  19. (2006). Introduction: thinking beyond the risk society’,
  20. (1996). Introduction’ in (eds) Irwin A and Wynne B Misunderstanding Science?,
  21. (2003). Introduction’ in (eds) Pidgeon N, Kasperson R and Slovic P, The Social Amplification of Risk,
  22. (2005). Introduction’, in (eds) Leach M, Scoones I and Wynne B, Science and Citizens: globalization and the challenge of engagement, Zed Books, London and
  23. (2006). Mid-stream modulation of technology: governance from within’, doi
  24. Murdcok G and O’Riordan T (2007a) The GM Debate: risk, politics and public engagement,
  25. (2005). On constructive technology assessment and limitations on public participation doi
  26. (2007). Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’?’
  27. (2005). Opening-up or Closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology’ in (eds) Leach M, Scoones I and Wynne B, Science and Citizens: globalization and the challenge of engagement, Zed Books, London and doi
  28. (2008). Power relations: the politics of risk and procedure in nuclear waste governance’,
  29. (2007). Public dialogue and the scientific citizen’ in (eds) Flynn R and Bellaby P, Risk and the Public Acceptance of New Technologies, Palgrave-Macmillan,
  30. (2008). Public engagement to build trust: false hopes?’
  31. (2008). Removing the economic and institutional barriers to a hydrogen future: report to the Department for Transport,
  32. (2006). Rethinking constructive technology assessment as democratic reflective discourse’, doi
  33. (2007). Risk and the public acceptance of new technologies’ in (eds)
  34. (2005). Risk as globalizing discourse? Framing subjects and citizens’, in (eds) Leach M, Scoones I and Wynne B, Science and Citizens: globalization and the challenge of engagement, Zed Books, London and doi
  35. (2008). Risk Governance,
  36. (2006). Risk, environment and technology’ in (eds) Taylor-Gooby
  37. (2007). Risky public engagement and reflexivity: alternative framings of the public dimensions of nanotechnology’,
  38. (2005). Science and citizenship in a global context’ in (eds) Leach M, Scoones I and Wynne B, Science and Citizens: globalization and the challenge of engagement, Zed Books, London and
  39. (2003). Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge,
  40. (2008). Scientised citizens and democratised science: re-assessing the expertlay divide’,
  41. (2004). See-through Science: why public engagement needs to move upstream,
  42. (2004). Society and Royal Academy of Engineering
  43. (2007). Stakeholders’ and publics’ perceptions of hydrogen energy technologies’
  44. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda and policy’, doi
  45. (2006). The current significance of risk’ in (eds) TaylorGooby
  46. (2007). The development and diffusion of rapid technological innovation: the role of bus demonstration projects in commercializing fuel cell technology’ doi
  47. (2002). The Hydrogen Economy, Tarcher/Putnam,
  48. (2006). The Hydrogen Economy: a non-technical review, http://www.uneptie.org/energy/publications/pdfs/Hydro_Econ_final.pdf [accessed 15
  49. (1996). The past and future of Constructive Technology Assessment’,
  50. (2000). The Perception of Risk, doi
  51. (2007). The Prospects for a Hydrogen Economy,
  52. (2002). The social construction of technology: structural considerations’,
  53. (2007). The transition to hydrogenbased energy: combining technology and risk assessments and lay perspectives’,
  54. (2001). Towards new forms of participatory technology development’, doi
  55. (2006). Transitions to a UK Hydrogen Economy,
  56. (2005). Using surveys in public participation processes for risk decision-making: the case of the
  57. (2008). What do we know about public perceptions and acceptance of hydrogen? A critical review and new case study evidence’,
  58. (2000). Wising Up: the public and new technologies, Centre for the Study of Environmental Change,

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.