|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation
Gene Rowe
Institute of Food Research
Lynn J. Frewer
Institute of Food Research
There is a growing call for greater public involvement in establishing science and technology policy, in line with democratic ideals. A variety of public participation procedures exist that aim to consult and involve the public, ranging from the public hearing to the consensus conference. Unfortunately, a general lack of empirical consideration of the quality of these methods arises from confusion as to the appropriate benchmarks for evaluation. Given that the quality of the output of any participation exercise is difficult to determine, the authors suggest the need to consider which aspects of the process are desirable and then to measure the presence or quality of these process aspects. To this end, a number of theoretical evaluation criteria that are essential for effective public participation are specified. These comprise two types: acceptance criteria, which concern features of a method that make it acceptable to the wider public, and process criteria, which concern features of the process that are liable to ensure that it takes place in an effective manner. Future research needs to develop instruments to measure these criteria more precisely and identify the contextual and environmental factors that will mediate the effectiveness of the different participation methods.
Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 25, No. 1,
3-29 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/016224390002500101
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
J. E. W. Broerse, T. de Cock Buning, A. Roelofsen, and J. F. G. Bunders
Evaluating Interactive Policy Making on Biotechnology: The Case of the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport
Bulletin of Science Technology Society,
December 1, 2009;
29(6):
447 - 463.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. J. Boonstra and B. B. Bock
Fallacies of Virtualization: A Case Study of Farming, Manure, Landscapes, and Dutch Rural Policy
Science Technology Human Values,
July 1, 2009;
34(4):
427 - 448.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Harvey
Drama, Talk, and Emotion: Omitted Aspects of Public Participation
Science Technology Human Values,
March 1, 2009;
34(2):
139 - 161.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. C. Besley, V. L. Kramer, Qingjiang Yao, and C. Toumey
Interpersonal Discussion Following Citizen Engagement About Nanotechnology: What, If Anything, Do They Say?
Science Communication,
December 1, 2008;
30(2):
209 - 235.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Nahuis and H. van Lente
Where Are the Politics? Perspectives on Democracy and Technology
Science Technology Human Values,
September 1, 2008;
33(5):
559 - 581.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. S. Carolan
Democratizing Knowledge: Sustainable and Conventional Agricultural Field Days as Divergent Democratic Forms
Science Technology Human Values,
July 1, 2008;
33(4):
508 - 528.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. A. Mandarano
Evaluating Collaborative Environmental Planning Outputs and Outcomes: Restoring and Protecting Habitat and the New York--New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program
Journal of Planning Education and Research,
June 1, 2008;
27(4):
456 - 468.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Chilvers
Deliberating Competence: Theoretical and Practitioner Perspectives on Effective Participatory Appraisal Practice
Science Technology Human Values,
May 1, 2008;
33(3):
421 - 451.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Stirling
"Opening Up" and "Closing Down": Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology
Science Technology Human Values,
March 1, 2008;
33(2):
262 - 294.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Chilvers
Deliberating Competence: Theoretical and Practitioner Perspectives on Effective Participatory Appraisal Practice
Science Technology Human Values,
March 1, 2008;
33(2):
155 - 185.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Marris, P.-B. Joly, and A. Rip
Interactive Technology Assessment in the Real World: Dual Dynamics in an iTA Exercise on Genetically Modified Vines
Science Technology Human Values,
January 1, 2008;
33(1):
77 - 100.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Graber
Obvious Decisions: Decision-making among French Ponts-et-Chaussees Engineers around 1800
Social Studies of Science,
December 1, 2007;
37(6):
935 - 960.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. F. Caron-Flinterman, J. E. W. Broerse, and J. F. G. Bunders
Patient Partnership in Decision-Making on Biomedical Research: Changing the Network
Science Technology Human Values,
May 1, 2007;
32(3):
339 - 368.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Blok
Experts on public trial: on democratizing expertise through a Danish consensus conference
Public Understanding of Science,
April 1, 2007;
16(2):
163 - 182.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Goven
Processes of Inclusion, Cultures of Calculation, Structures of Power: Scientific Citizenship and the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification
Science Technology Human Values,
September 1, 2006;
31(5):
565 - 598.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Higgs
Integrating multi-criteria techniques with geographical information systems in waste facility location to enhance public participation
Waste Management Research,
April 1, 2006;
24(2):
105 - 117.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Seifert
Local steps in an international career: a Danish-style consensus conference in Austria
Public Understanding of Science,
January 1, 2006;
15(1):
73 - 88.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Rowe, T. Horlick-Jones, J. Walls, and N. Pidgeon
Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? public debate about transgenic crops
Public Understanding of Science,
October 1, 2005;
14(4):
331 - 352.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. S. Murdock, C. Wiessner, and K. Sexton
Stakeholder Participation in Voluntary Environmental Agreements: Analysis of 10 Project XL Case Studies
Science Technology Human Values,
April 1, 2005;
30(2):
223 - 250.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Rowe and L. J. Frewer
A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms
Science Technology Human Values,
April 1, 2005;
30(2):
251 - 290.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Rowe and L. J. Frewer
Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda
Science Technology Human Values,
October 1, 2004;
29(4):
512 - 556.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W.-M. Roth, J. Riecken, L. Pozzer-Ardenghi, R. McMillan, B. Storr, D. Tait, G. Bradshaw, and T. P. Penner
Those Who Get Hurt Aren't Always Being Heard: Scientist-Resident Interactions over Community Water
Science Technology Human Values,
April 1, 2004;
29(2):
153 - 183.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Rowe, R. Marsh, and L. J. Frewer
Evaluation of a Deliberative Conference
Science Technology Human Values,
January 1, 2004;
29(1):
88 - 121.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Futrell
Technical Adversarialism and Participatory Collaboration in the U.S. Chemical Weapons Disposal Program
Science Technology Human Values,
October 1, 2003;
28(4):
451 - 482.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. W. Hamlett
Technology Theory and Deliberative Democracy
Science Technology Human Values,
January 1, 2003;
28(1):
112 - 140.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Webler and S. Tuler
Unlocking the Puzzle of Public Participation
Bulletin of Science Technology Society,
June 1, 2002;
22(3):
179 - 189.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Hudspith and M. Kim
Learning From a University-Cosponsored Regional Consensus Conference
Bulletin of Science Technology Society,
June 1, 2002;
22(3):
232 - 238.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W.-M. Roth and S. Lee
Scientific literacy as collective praxis
Public Understanding of Science,
January 1, 2002;
11(1):
33 - 56.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
