Evaluating public participation: instruments and implications for citizen involvement (original) (raw)
2012, Community Development
The article presents two studies that address issues concerning the evaluation of public participation. Study 1 aimed to validate two instruments for measuring the process (the Deliberative Process Perceived Quality Scale, composed of two factors: “dialogue” and “knowledge/understanding”) and the outcome (Outcome Rating Scale) of a specific participatory procedure, i.e. the Open Space Technology (OST). Study 2 explored whether the participants' evaluation of OST's process and outcome predicted the future involvement of citizens in the same type of practices. Participants (N = 471) were recruited during five OSTs held in Italy between January and October 2010. The results indicated that (a) “dialogue” and “knowledge/understanding” appeared as distinct mechanisms and (b) participants who experienced respectful and collaborative relationships, and who positively evaluated the results achieved, were more likely to repeat a similar experience in the future, irrespective of the associated cognitive gains. Implications for community development and empowerment processes are discussed.
Related papers
Public Participation - Potential and Pitfalls
Energy & Environment, 2008
Over the past ten years there has been an increased awareness of the importance of stakeholder involvement and public participation in policy making. However, despite a general acceptance that stakeholder participation is important within decision-making, it is less clear as to how that participation should be undertaken, who should be involved, and how the various methods for participation should be evaluated. By first reflecting on some of the philosophical assumptions behind the view that stakeholder engagement is important, this paper presents a number of possible evaluation criteria for such involvement. It suggests that the appraisal of processes needs to include consideration of the legitimacy of the procedure, in addition to the more common efficiency evaluation of procedures and outcomes. Using experience from case studies, these criteria are then used to highlight the main promises and pitfalls of the various participation procedures.
Public Participation, Science and Society
2018
List of f igures vii List of tables viii List of boxes ix Notes on contributors x Foreword xii Preface xiv Acknowledgement xvi Acronyms and abbreviations xvii PART I Analytical framework: how to study public engagement 1 1 Introduction: PE in the context of research and innovation 3 2 Methodology: exploring and evaluating innovative PE processes 19 3 Conceptual framework: PE as part of dynamic and responsible governance of R&I 27 4 Research questions 36 PART II Results: learnings from innovative PE processes 39 5 Empirical data: what kind of cases are studied 41 6 What makes PE innovative 45 Contents vi Contents 7 What is participatory performance? 8 How to evaluate PE 9 Discussion: what are the benefits and limitations of PE in developing better R&I activity? References Index 1.1 Participatory performance of nations 2.1 A reading instruction for the cognitive maps in Appendix 1 (online) 3.1 Analytical framework 6.1 Four sectors of the economy and society 6.2 Different actors participating in innovative PE processes 4 6.3 PE cases by main methodological category 6.4 Coincidence of the number of PE tools and instruments with innovativeness (see Appendices 4 and 6 online) 6.5 PE contributing to systemic change 6.6 Normative impacts of innovative PE 6.7 Different types of policy impacts 6.8 Structuration of the studied PE processes 7.1 A composite model of participatory performance 8.1 Main tendency of goal setting in innovative PE 9.1 A vision of PE benefitting dynamic and responsible R&I activities 2.1 Contents of the statistical analysis 5.1 Basic information about the 38 innovative PE cases: title, coordinator, year and type 6.1 Orientation of the PE initiatives toward societal challenges 6.2 Distribution of PE cases and categories per societal challenges 6.3 Types of promoters of innovative PE processes 6.4 Summary of the impacts of the studied PE processes 6.5 Share of different types of impacts in the studied PE processes 7.1 Participatory performance functions of innovative PE 7.2 Innovative PE processes contributing to opening of European R&I culture 8.1 List of ten preliminary criteria of successful PE 8.2 An extended list of success factors divided to 'procedural virtues' and 'utilitarian goods' 8.3 Short-listed set of success criteria 8.4 The synthetic model of PE evaluation Tables 1.1 General definition of public engagement (PE) 1.2 Alternative definitions of PE 1.3 Three phases of public engagement 2.1 Categories of PE 3.
Practical Experience of Public Participation: Evidence from Methodological Experiments
Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 2003
This paper discusses the general principles underlying the real and active participation of the public in decisions which affect a community. I begin with a brief consideration of the philosophical and political rationale for including the public in these decisions. Then I will explain what is needed in a public participation process in order to ensure that it is fair, helpful and cost-effective for all people involved. Then I will describe two examples where we set up some experiments in public participation to test these principles. Finally I will consider the application of these outcomes in other circumstances. Thus the paper will discuss the processes of public participation and deliberation, the potential for decision-making processes in general and the problems associated with these approaches.
We argue that some of the controversies over the democratic merits of (participatory) technology assessment can be traced to conflicting assumptions about what constitutes a legitimate democratic procedure. We compare how two influential normative models of democracy -'representative' and 'direct' -value public engagement processes according to different criteria. Criteria drawn from this analysis are used to compare a series of case studies on xenotransplantation policy-making. We show that the democratic merits of participatory technology assessments probably owe as much to the institutional context as to the precise evaluative criteria or procedural designs. This calls for a closer interaction between science and technology studies research on public engagement and comparative politics scholarship.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.