Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Public Understanding of Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (7)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Burgess, J.
Right arrow Articles by Williamson, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions

Jacquelin Burgess

University College London (UCL), jacquie.burgess{at}uea.ac.uk

Andy Stirling

University of Sussex

Judy Clark

Gail Davies

Malcolm Eames

Kristina Staley

Suzanne Williamson

This paper discusses the methodological development of Deliberative Mapping (DM), a participatory, multi-criteria, option appraisal process that combines a novel approach to the use of quantitative decision analysis techniques with some significant innovations in the field of participatory deliberation. DM is a symmetrical process, engaging "specialists" and "citizens" in the same appraisal process, providing for consistency of framing, mutual inter-linkage and interrogation, and substantial opportunities for face-to-face discussion. Through a detailed case study of organ transplantation options, the paper discusses the steps in DM. The analysis shows that DM is able to elicit and document consensual judgments as well as divergent views by integrating analytic and deliberative components in a transparent, auditable process that creates many opportunities for personal learning, and provides a robust decision-support tool for contested science-policy issues.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 16, No. 3, 299-322 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0963662507077510
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Prog Hum GeogrHome page
G. Davies and C. Dwyer
Progress reports
Progress in Human Geography, June 1, 2008; 32(3): 399 - 406.
[PDF]

Home page
 Science Technology Human ValuesHome page
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]