slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Deliberating Nanotechnologies in the US: PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Deliberating Nanotechnologies in the US:

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 1

Deliberating Nanotechnologies in the US: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 80 Views
  • Uploaded on

Deliberating Nanotechnologies in the US: Gendered Beliefs and Patterns of Speech in Public Deliberation. SES 0824042 SES 0531184. Gender, Risk, and Equitable Participation: Analysis of Speech and Discourse 1 Six deliberative workshops conducted Fall 2009 in Santa

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Deliberating Nanotechnologies in the US:' - cheung


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Deliberating Nanotechnologies in the US:

Gendered Beliefs and Patterns of Speech in Public Deliberation

SES 0824042

SES 0531184

  • Gender, Risk, and Equitable Participation:
  • Analysis of Speech and Discourse1
  • Six deliberative workshops conducted Fall 2009 in Santa
  • Barbara,CA. Focused on
  • nanotechnology in
  • 1) Energy/Environment
  • 2) Health/Human enhancement
  • Results:
  • Men spoke 28% more than women (p =.02)
  • Men used more intrusive interruptions than women (p=.07), and white participants used more intrusive interruptions than others (p=.01)
  • Women used more backchannels than men, particularly in health contexts (p=.01)
  • Individuals who move towards a benefit stance on nano use more backchannels than those who do not change (p=.04)
  • Views on health and food nano applications
  • Health applications2
  • High levels of hope and hesitation for nano in health.
  • Ambivalence not necessarily a transitory state; complex risk/benefit views
  • Ambivalent statements voiced
  • more by people of color and
  • women
  • Foodapplications3
  • Nano for food/food packaging raised most discussion less certainty of benefits, consistent with many nanosurvey findings
  • All-women deliberation particularly skeptical of nanofor food
  • Food a particularly “sacred” cultural domain, makes people uneasy about technological modifications

1Harthorn, B.H., Rogers, J.B., Shearer, C., Denes, A., Cranfill, R., Hanna, S., Martin, T., Hurt, I.

2Barbara Herr Harthorn, Christine Shearer, and Jennifer Rogers-Brown. 2012. “Exploring Ambivalence: Techno-Enthusiasm and Skepticism in US Nanotech Deliberations,” Quantum Engagements (IOS Press).

3Jennifer Rogers-Brown, Christine Shearer, and Barbara Herr Harthorn. 2012. “From Biotech to Nanotech: Public Debates about Technological Modification of Food.” Environment and Society: Advances in Research, Volume 2.