This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0963662506075351v1 17/4/419    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Rowe, G. Articles by Pidgeon, N. F. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: reliability, validity and limitations

Institute of Food Research, Norwich Research Park, Colney, Norwich NR4 7UA, UK, gene.rowe{at}bbsrc.ac.uk

Tom Horlick-Jones

School of Social Sciences at Cardiff University

John Walls

School of Environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia (UK)

Wouter Poortinga

Health and Risk Communication at the Welsh School of Architecture and the School of Psychology, Cardiff University

Nick F. Pidgeon

School of Psychology at the University of Cardiff (UK)

Over recent years, many policy-makers and academics have come to the view that involving the public in policy setting and decision-making (or "public engagement") is desirable. The theorized benefits of engagement (over traditional approaches) include the attainment of more satisfactory and easier decisions, greater trust in decision-makers, and the enhancement of public and organizational knowledge. Empirical support for these advantages is, however, scant. Engagement processes are rarely evaluated, and when they are, the quality of evidence is generally poor. The absence of standard effectiveness criteria, and instruments to measure performance against these, hinders evaluation, comparison, generalization and the accumulation of knowledge. In this paper one normative framework for evaluating engagement processes is considered. This framework was operationalized and used as part of the evaluation of a recent major UK public engagement initiative: the 2003 GM Nation? debate. The evaluation criteria and processes are described, and their validity and limitations are analyzed. Results suggest the chosen evaluation criteria have some validity, though they do not exhaustively cover all appropriate criteria by which engagement exercises ought to be evaluated. The paper concludes with suggestions on how to improve the framework.

This version was published on October 1, 2008

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 17, No. 4, 419-441 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0963662506075351


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?