Science, Technology, and Human Values 40 (3):421-444 (2015)
AbstractThere is a lack of published evidence which demonstrates the impacts of public engagement in science and technology policy. This might represent the failure of PE to achieve policy impacts or indicate a lack of effective procedures for discerning the uptake by policy makers of PE-derived outputs. While efforts have been made to identify and categorize different types of policy impact, research has rarely attempted to link policy impact with PE procedures, political procedures, or the connections between them. In this article, we propose a simple conceptual model to capture this information, based on semistructured interviews with both policy makers and PE practitioners. A range of criteria are identified to increase the policy impact of PE. The role of PE practitioners in realizing impacts through their interactions with policy makers in the informal “in-between” spaces of public engagement is emphasized. However, the potential contradictions between the pursuit of policy impacts and the more traditional conceptualizations of PE effectiveness are discussed. The main barrier to the identification of policy impacts from PE may lie within policy processes themselves. Political institutions have responsibility to establish formalized procedures for monitoring the uptake and use of evidence from PE in their decision-making processes.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
References found in this work
Survey Article: Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices and Their Consequences.Archon Fung - 2003 - Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (3):338–367.
A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms.Lynn J. Frewer & Gene Rowe - 2005 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 30 (2):251-290.
Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation.Lynn J. Frewer & Gene Rowe - 2000 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 25 (1):3-29.
Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda.Lynn J. Frewer & Gene Rowe - 2004 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 29 (4):512-556.
Survey Article: Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices and Their Consequences.Archon Fung - 2003 - Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (3):338-367.
Citations of this work
Responsible Innovation Through Conscious Contestation at the Interface of Agricultural Science, Policy, and Civil Society.Laxmi Prasad Pant - 2019 - Agriculture and Human Values 36 (2):183-197.
Juggling Roles, Experiencing Dilemmas: The Challenges of SSH Scholars in Public Engagement.Jantien Willemijn Schuijer, Jacqueline Broerse & Frank Kupper - 2021 - NanoEthics 15 (2):169-189.
Perception Et Émergence D’Une Boutique des Sciences Dans la Région des Hauts-de-France.Bénédicte Lefebvre, Annunziata Savoia & Bertrand Bocquet - 2019 - Natures Sciences Sociétés 27 (3):342-349.
Similar books and articles
Public Value Mapping and Science Policy Evaluation.Barry Bozeman & Daniel Sarewitz - 2011 - Minerva 49 (1):1-23.
Avoiding Empty Rhetoric: Engaging Publics in Debates About Nanotechnologies.Renee Kyle & Susan Dodds - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):81-96.
Participatory Paradoxes: Facilitating Citizen Engagement in Science and Technology From the Top-Down?Mathilde Colin & Maria C. Powell - 2009 - Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 29 (4):325-342.
Tools of the Trade: UK Research Intermediaries and the Politics of Impacts. [REVIEW]Matthew Kearnes & Matthias Wienroth - 2011 - Minerva 49 (2):153-174.
Opportunities and Challenges in the Use of Public Deliberation to Inform Public Health Policies.Julia Abelson - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (11):24-25.
Reconciling Justice and Attribution Research to Advance Climate Policy.Huggel Christian, Wallimann-Helmer Ivo, Stone Dáithí & Cramer Wolfgang - 2016 - .
Mass-Mediated Expertise as Informal Policy Advice.Hans Peter Peters, Harald Heinrichs & Imme Petersen - 2010 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 35 (6):865-887.
Community Engagement to Facilitate, Legitimize and Accelerate the Advancement of Nanotechnologies in Australia.Kristen Lyons & James Whelan - 2010 - NanoEthics 4 (1):53-66.
Wanted: A New Ethics Field for Health Policy Analysis.Nuala Kenny & Mita Giacomini - 2005 - Health Care Analysis 13 (4):247-260.
New Public Management and the Reform of Education: European Lessons for Policy and Practice.Helen M. Gunter, Emiliano Grimaldi, David Hall & Roberto Serpieri (eds.) - 2016 - Routledge.
The Narrowed Domain of Disagreement for Well-Being Policy.Gil Hersch - 2018 - Public Affairs Quarterly 32 (1):1-19.
The Ethics of Public Policy RCTs: The Principle of Policy Equipoise.Douglas MacKay - 2018 - Bioethics 32 (1):59-67.
YUTPA as a Design Tool for Public Participation.Maurice Berix - 2012 - AI and Society 27 (1):165-172.
Evaluating the First U.S. Consensus Conference: The Impact of the Citizens’ Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy.David H. Guston - 1999 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 24 (4):451-482.
The Development of an Animal Welfare Impact Assessment (AWIA) Tool and Its Application to Bovine Tuberculosis and Badger Control in England.Steven P. McCulloch & Michael J. Reiss - 2017 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30 (4):485-510.