IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v24y1997i6p366-376.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consensus conferences as ‘extended peer groups’

Author

Listed:
  • Jon Fixdal

Abstract

In the debate about lay involvement in science and technology policy-making it has been argued that, because of the uncertain and contested character of scientific advice used in policy contexts, we need new ‘extended peer groups’ These should be composed of citizens affected by decisions, who should be given an opportunity to criticise bodies of scientific knowledge. It is, however, unclear how the affected public should be defined, and how the groups should be organised. This paper examines how consensus conferences developed by the Danish Board of Technology can represent one way of organising extended peer groups. In consensus conferences, panels of 14–16 lay citizens question a group of experts on a controversial topic, answer a set of questions, and, by producing a consensus statement, provide policy-makers with advice on how various aspects of the topic should be handled. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Jon Fixdal, 1997. "Consensus conferences as ‘extended peer groups’," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(6), pages 366-376, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:24:y:1997:i:6:p:366-376
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/spp/24.6.366
    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:24:y:1997:i:6:p:366-376. 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.