Abstract
In this study, analyzing nationally represented survey data collected in 2003, we consider the roots of issue-specific citizen participation in the controversy over embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. Building on past research, we pay particular theoretical attention to the role of issue engagements, the impact of church-based recruitment, and the influence of news media attentiveness. Given the increasing emphasis in science policy circles on creating new forms of public engagement, we also measure citizen willingness to attend and participate in a proposed local deliberative forum on the stem cell debate. Results indicate that traditional forms of citizen activism in the controversy over embryonic stem cell research and cloning is rooted almost exclusively in direct requests for participation through religious organizations rather than socio-economic differences among respondents, though issue engagement (measured as opinion intensity) and news attentiveness also play an important role. In terms of deliberative forums, traditional resource factors are significant, as the citizens who indicate they are most likely to participate in such a hypothetical local town meeting are generally highly educated, white, and younger. Above and beyond these resource factors, however, citizens willing to participate are also likely to have received requests to get involved in the debate at church, hold more intense feelings about the issue, and are paying closer attention to news coverage. In the future, in order to ensure the normative goals of diverse and/or representative participation, if actual deliberative forums are employed, these findings suggest that organizers will need to focus heavily on purposive sampling and turn out efforts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A number of important studies have considered differences in public attitudes among issue publics and the mass public. These studies often measure issue publics in terms of knowledge, education, and self-reported interest in the policy area (Krosnick & Telhami, 1995).
Verba et al. (1995) present evidence that levels of participation have been changing for different types of participation. For example, voting and membership in political clubs have decreased, while contributing to candidates and letter writing have increased.
Verba et al. (2000) correctly note that rational choice models actually come in a variety of shapes and forms, with variations dependent upon decision-making context and assumptions about preferences and constraints. Rational choice models also do a much better job explaining the calculus by which organized interests "prospect' for participants (Brady, Schlozman, & Verba, 1999).
For a recent overview of the literature on the social structural effects on participation, and their connections to mass-mediated influences, see Scheufele et al. (2004).
Major differences in the amount of attention to the stem cell and cloning debate between newspapers and television news is also likely to account for a much stronger role for newspaper use in the current study. For the year 2002, ABC World News Tonight and CBS Evening News devoted just eleven news stories to the issue, versus more than 120 news articles that ran at the New York Times and Washington Post. For 2003, the two networks ran 25 news stories compared to 294 articles at the two newspapers (Nisbet, 2004).
Response rates have been declining over the last several years. Our response rate—while not ideal—falls within current academic survey center norms (Kosicki, Marton, & Lee, 2003). While non-response bias is the great unknown of survey research, recent research indicates that it may be less problematic than is commonly believed (Curtin, Presser, & Singer, 2000; Keeter, Miller, Kohut, Groves, & Presser, 2000).
It is important to note that these figures are point estimates of an unknown population parameter, and our estimate falls within a margin of error for a survey of this size with limited variance (.06/.94) on the parameter of interest. Given the variance and sample size, the margin of error would be approximately +/−2.4%. Within this context, the measured rates of participation on the stem cell debate are consistent with past estimates of issue specific participation and general levels of participation. For example, in the 1980s, the General Social Survey asked respondents if they had written a letter to a newspaper or magazine on behalf of an organization, and roughly 16% of respondents said they had. According to a Roper poll from the 1980s, 12% reported writing a letter to the editor on the issue of the environment. The National Election Study reports that since the 1990s, 7–11% of respondents report contributing money during an election to support a campaign, and between 17% and 34% of respondents report trying to influence how another person voted. In all, our participation estimates involve error attributable to sampling, recall, social desirability, and interest in the topic. Future research should further explore improved measures for policy-oriented participation outside of an election context. One possibility is to move away from national samples and to local or community level studies.
Although, like many indices of participation, the reliability of this measure is less than ideal, the low reliability is explainable by the dichotomous nature of the individual items, and by the fact that each of these items involves time and effort, making these particular forms of participation alternative conditions. In other words, most citizens will choose either to contact an elected official, write a letter to the editor, try to persuade someone to support or oppose an issue, or donate money, but very few will choose to do all three. Thus, we are unlikely to find high correlations among these items.
Verba et al. (1995) measure this in terms of actual skills—writing a letter, attending, planning or chairing a meeting, or given a presentation or speech. While this measure is not as direct as we would like, it does provide a rough indicator of church-based activity, if not church based skills.
There may be important differences among evangelical Protestants and mainline denominations, which we are unable to leverage in the current data.
We also tested models using age squared to look at nonlinear effects. Of the models included in the paper only two had significant findings—the likelihood of speaking up at a public meeting and expressing a different view. For speaking up at a meeting, age was significant and positive, while age squared was significant and negative (P < .01). For expressing a different view, age was not significant and age squared was only significant at P < .10. A full set of these results can be obtained from the authors.
References
Brady, H., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (1999). Prospecting for participants: Rational expectations and the recruitment of political activists. American Political Science Review, 93, 153–167.
Brossard, D., & Shanahan, J. (2003). Do citizens want to have their say? Media, agricultural biotechnology, and authoritarian views of science. Mass Communication and Society, 6, 291–312.
Brown, A. C. (1996). African American churches and political mobilization: The psychological impact of organization resources. Journal of Politics, 58, 935–953.
Brown, R. K., & Brown, R. E. (2003). Faith and works: Church-based social capital resources and African-American political activism. Social Forces, 82, 617–642.
Burns, N., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (2001). The private roots of public action: Gender, equality, and political participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Campbell, A. L. (2002). Self -interest, Social Security, and the distinctive participation patterns of senior citizens. American Political Science Review, 96, 565–574.
Campbell, A. L. (2003a). Participatory reactions to policy threats: Senior citizens and the defense of Social Security and Medicare. Political Behavior, 25, 29–49.
Campbell, A. L. (2003b). How policies make citizens: Senior political activism and the American welfare state. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press.
Curtin, R., Presser, S., & Singer S. (2000). The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiments. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(4), 416–429.
Dahl, R. A. (1956). A preface to democratic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dewey, J. (1954). The public and its problems. Athens, Ohio: Swallow Press.
Djupe, P. A., & Grant, J. T. (2001). Religious institutions and political participation in America. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 40, 303–315.
Djupe, P. A., & Gilbert, C. P. (2002). The political voice of clergy. Journal of Politics, 64, 596–609.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.
Dutton, D. (1984). The impact of public participation in biomedical policy: Evidence from four case studies. In J. C. Petersen (Ed.), Citizen participation in science policy. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
Einsiedel, E., Jelsoe, E., & Breck, T. (2001). Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 83–89.
Eveland, W., & Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communication, 17, 215–237.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Greenberg, A. (2000). The church and the revitalization of politics and the community. Political Science Quarterly, 115, 377–394.
Guth, J. L., Beal, L., Crow, G., Gaddy, B., Montreal, S., Nelsen, B., Penning, J., & Walz, J. (2003). The political activity of evangelical clergy in the election of 2000: A case study of five denominations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 501–514.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Harris, G. (1994). Something within: Religion as a mobilizer of African-American political Activism. Journal of Politics, 56, 42–68.
Hildreth, A. (1994). Making ‘easy’ issues ‘hard’: How interest groups shape the ‘faces’ of public issues. Presented at the American Political Science Association Meetings. September 1–4, 1994. New York City.
House of Lords (2000). Report by Select Committee appointed to consider Science and Technology, February 23, 2000.
Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communications: Information and influences in an election campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Irwin, A. (2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 1–18.
Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Keeter, S., Miller, C., Kohut, A., Groves, R. M., & Presser, S. (2000). Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 125–149.
King, G., & Zeng, L. (2003). Relogit: Rare events logistic regression. Journal of Statistical Software, 8(2) 137–163.
King, G., & Zeng, L. (2001a). Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis, 9, 137–163.
King, G., & Zeng, L. (2001b). Explaining rare events in international relations. International Organization, 55, 693–715.
Kohut, A., Green, J. C., Keeter, S., & Toth, R. C. (2000). The diminishing divide: Religion’s changing role in American politics. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
Kosicki, G., Martin, M. K., & Lee, R. H. (2003). Response rates today: Academic survey centers. Paper presented at the 58th annual meeting of the American Association of Public Opinion Research.
Krimsky, S. (1991). Biotechnics and Society: The rise of industrial genetics. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Krosnick, J. (1990). Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue publics in contemporary America. Political Behavior, 12, 59–92.
Krosnick, J., & Telhami, S. (1995). Public attitudes toward Israel: A study of the attentive and issue publics. International Studies Quarterly, 39, 535–554.
Leege, D. C. (1993). Religion and politics in theoretical perspective. In D. C. Leege & L. Kellstedt (Eds.), Rediscovering the religious factor in American Politics (pp. 3–25). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Leighley, Jan. (1996). JOP 58.
Leighley, J., (1996). Group membership and the mobilization of political participation. Journal of Politics, 58(2), 447–463.
Lemert, J. B. (1992). Effective public opinion. In J. D. Kennamer (Eds.), Public opinion, the press, and public policy. (pp. 41–61). Westport, CT: Praeger.
McCarthy, J., & Zald, M. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1212–1241.
McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., Moy, P., Horowitz, Ed M., Holbert, R. L., Zhang, W., Zubric, S., & Zubric, J. (1999). Understanding deliberation: The effects of discussion networks on participation in a public forum. Communication Research, 26(6), 623–654.
McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., & Moy, P. (1999). Community, communication, and participation: The role of the mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication, 16, 315–336.
McComas, K. A. (2001). Theory and practice of public meetings. Communication Theory, 11, 36–55.
Nisbet, M. C. (2004). The stem cell controversy: Towards a model of mediated issue development. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the International Communication Association.
Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(2), 36–70.
Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2004). Political talk as a catalyst for online citizenship. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(4), 877–896.
Price, V., Dutwin, D., & Na, E. K. (2000). Who deliberates? Opportunities, motivations and resources for participation in citizen deliberation. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the International Communication Association (ICA), May 2002. Acapulco, Mexico.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen J. M., (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: MacMillan Publishing.
Salisbury, R. (1975). Research in political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 19, 323–341.
Scheufele, D. A. (2002). Differential gains from mass media and their implications for participatory behavior. Communication Research, 29, 45–64.
Scheufele, D. A., & Nisbet, M. C. (2002). Being a citizen online: New opportunities and dead ends. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7, 53–73.
Scheufele, D. A., Nisbet, M. C., & Brossard, D. (2003). Pathways to political participation? Religion, communication contexts, and mass media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15, 300–324.
Scheufele, D. A., Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Nisbet, E. C. (2004). Social structure and citizenship: Examining the impacts of social setting, network heterogeneity, and informational variables on political participation. Political Communication, 21, 315–328.
Verba, S., & Brody, R. (1970). Participation, policy preferences, and the war in Vietman. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 325.
Verba, S., & Nie, N. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. (2000). Rational action and political activity. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 12, 243–268.
Wald, K. D. (1992). Religion and politics in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly.
Wald, K. D., Owen, D. E., & Hill, S. S. Jr., (1988). Churches as political communities. American Political Science Review, 28, 531–547.
Warren, M. C. (2001). Dry bones rattling: Community building to revitalize American Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wood, R. L. (2002). Faith in action: Religion, race, and democratic organizing in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
An earlier version of this manuscript was presented to the 2005 meetings of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, LA, and the 2004 meetings of the Midwest Association for Public Opinion Research, Chicago, IL.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Goidel, K., Nisbet, M. Exploring the Roots of Public Participation in the Controversy Over Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Cloning. Polit Behav 28, 175–192 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-006-9007-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-006-9007-4