Titlebook: Deliberative Public Engagement with Science; An Empirical Investi Lisa M. PytlikZillig,Myiah J. Hutchens,Alan J. Tom Book‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ 2018 The

原來

incarcerate

insurrection

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-86288-5cies and the innovations themselves. However, some scholars have suggested deliberation can create attitude polarization, which could be a barrier to effective group decision-making and social progress. Thus, it is important to know when, if, and why processes lead to polarization. In this chapter,

organic-matrix

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-86288-5ght impact such acceptance—especially when a policy is not preferred. Examination of the relationships between experimentally varied features of engagement and policy acceptance suggests few, if any, main effects of different features. There is even less evidence that any of the engagement features

Decimate

palliate

PANIC

stress-test

The Big Picture,f deliberative public engagement to study the impacts in the context of deliberations about nanotechnology. In this chapter, we discuss the purpose of this book, which is to advance science of public engagement, and the overarching question motivating our research: What public engagement methods wor

eczema

Specific Methods,ribe our rationale for examining our research questions in the context of the college student classroom. Then we compare and contrast the major features of our studies, including the participants, timing, materials, measures, and procedures for each study, and provide explanations for certain change

誘拐

Knowledge, in a public engagement. The results are replicated and compared across three different public engagements, all using undergraduate students as participants. Knowledge is examined at four different time points, allowing researchers to understand when learning is most likely occurring. Results indica