Providing technical and experiential information without overwhelming participants’ perspectives presents a major challenge to public involvement in policy decisions. This article reports the design and analysis of a case study on incorporating expert and stakeholder knowledge without including them as deliberators, while supporting deliberative participants’ ability to introduce and critically assess different perspectives. Analysis of audio-recorded deliberations illustrates how expert and stakeholder knowledge was cited, criticized and incorporated into deliberations. In conclusion, separating experts and stakeholders from deliberations may be an important prima facie principle when the goal is to enhance citizen representation on technical issues and related policy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abelson, J., Forest, P.G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martina, E. and Gauvin, F.P. ( 2003) "Deliberations about Deliberative Methods: Issues in the Design and Evaluation of Public Participation Processes," Social Science and Medicine57: 239-51.
2.
Beierle, T.C. ( 1999) "Using Social Goals to Evaluate Public Participation in Environmental Decisions," Policy Studies Review16(3-4): 75-103.
3.
Bone, Z., Crockett, J. and Hodge, S. ( 2006) "Deliberation Forums: A Pathway for Public Participation ," in Practice Change for Sustainable Communities: Exploring Footprints, Pathways and Possibilities.
4.
Burgess, M.M. and Tansey, J. ( 2008) "Democratic Deficit and the Politics of ‘Informed and Inclusive’ Consultation," in E. Einseidel and R. Parker (eds) Hindsight and Foresight on Emerging Technologies, pp. 275-88. Vancouver : UBC Press.
5.
Burgess, M.M., O’Doherty, K., Secko, D. ( 2008) "Biobanking in BC: Discussions of the Future of Personalized Medicine through Deliberative Public Engagement in British Columbia," Personalized Medicine5(3): 285-96
6.
Button, M. and Ryfe, M. ( 2005) "What Can We Learn from the Practice of Deliberative Democracy? ," in J. Gastil and P. Levine, P. (eds) The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century, pp. 20-33. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
7.
Castle, D. ( 2006) "The Balance Between Expertise and Authority in Citizen Engagement about New Biotechnology," Techne9(3): 1-13.
8.
Chambers, S. ( 2003) "Deliberative Democratic Theory," Annual Review of Political Science6: 307-26.
9.
Cohen, J. ( 1993) "Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy," in A. Hamlin and P. Pettit (eds) The Good Policy: Normative Analysis of The State, pp. 17-34. London , Blackwell.
10.
Crosby, N. ( 2003) Healthy Democracy: Empowering a Clear and Informed Voice of the People. Edina, MN: Beaver’s Pond Press.
11.
Dodds, S. and Ankeny, R. ( 2006) "Regulations of hESC Research in Australia: Promises and Pitfalls for Deliberative Democratic Approaches," Bioethical Inquiry3: 95-107.
12.
Elgar, B.S. and Caplan, A.L. ( 2006) "Consent and Anonymization in Research Involving Biobanks: Differing Terms and Norms Present Serious Barriers to an International Framework ," European Molecular Biology Organization Reports7(7): 661-6.
13.
Einsiedel, E. ( 2002) "Assessing a Controversial Medical Technology: Canadian Public Consultations on Xenotransplantation," Public Understanding of Science (11): 315-31.
14.
Fishkin, J.S. ( 1997) The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy . New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
15.
Gastil, J. and Keith, W. ( 2005) "A Nation that (Sometimes) Likes to Talk," in J. Gastil and P. Levine (eds) The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century, pp. 3-19. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16.
Goodin, R.E. and Dryzek, J.S. ( 2006) "Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics ," Politics and Society34(2): 219-44.
17.
Habermas, J. ( 1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contribution to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
18.
Hamlett, P.W. ( 2003) "Technology Theory and Deliberative Democracy," Science, Technology, and Human Values28(1): 121-2.
19.
Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. ( 1995) Ethnography: Principles in Practice (2nd edition). Routledge: New York .
20.
Helgesson, G. and Johnsson, L. ( 2005) "The Right to Withdraw Consent to Research on Biobank Samples," Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy8: 315-21.
21.
Jasanoff, S. and Wynne, B. ( 1998) "Science and Decisionmaking," in S. Rayner and E. Malone (eds) Human Choice and Climate Change, Vol. 1., pp. 1-87. Columbus: Battelle Press.
22.
Karpowitz, C. ( 2003) "Public Hearings and the Dynamics of Deliberative Democracy: A Case Study," unpublished manuscript, Princeton University , Princeton, NJ.
23.
Kerr, A.Cunningham-Burley, S. and Amos, A. ( 1998) "The New Genetics and Health: Mobilizing Lay Expertise ," Public Understanding of Science7: 41-60.
24.
Kettering Foundation (2000) Framing Issues for Public Deliberation: A Curriculum Guide for Workshops. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation.
25.
Longstaff, H. and Burgess, M.M. (in press) "Recruiting for Representation in Public Deliberation on the Ethics of Biobanks,"Public Understanding of Science.
26.
Longstaff, H. and Secko, D. ( 2007) "Media Influence on Biobank Deliberations," Electronic Working Papers Series, W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics, University of British Columbia, Canada. URL: http://www.gels.ethics.ubc.ca (accessed 14 November 2007).
27.
Luskin, R.C., Fishkin, J. and Jowell, R. ( 2002) "Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain ," British Journal of Political Science32: 455-87.
28.
Maschke, K. ( 2005) "Navigating an Ethical Patchwork-Human Gene Banks," Nature Biotechnology23(5): 539-45.
29.
McCoy, M. and McCormick, M.A. ( 2001) "Engaging the Whole Community in Dialogue and Action: Study Circles Resource Center," in D. Schoem and S. Hurtado (eds) Intergroup Dialogue-Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace, pp. 137-50. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
30.
McDaniels, T. ( 1998) "Ten Propositions for Untangling Descriptive and Prescriptive Lessons in Risk Perception Findings," Reliability Engineering and System Safety59: 132.
31.
O’Doherty, K. and Burgess, M.M. (in press) "Engaging the Public on Biobanks: Outcomes of the BC Biobank Deliberation,"Public Health Genomics.
32.
Pope, C., Ziebland, S. and Mays, N. ( 2000) "Qualitative Rsearch in Health Care: Analysing Qualitative Data," British Medical Journal320: 114-16.
33.
Rowe, G. and Frewer L.J. ( 2000) "Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation ," Science, Technology and Human Values25(1): 3-29.
34.
Sclove, R.E. ( 1995) Democracy and Technology. New York : Guilford Press.
35.
Webler, T. ( 1995) ‘‘‘Right’ Discourse in Citizen Participation: An evaluative yardstick," in O. Renn, T. Webler and P. Wiedelmann (eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, pp. 35-86. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Press.
