Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises

Reliability, validity and limitations

Bibliographic Data

ID20403221
AuthorsGene Rowe (0000-0002-0635-9159, Institute of Food Research, Norwich Research Park, Colney, Norwich NR4 7UA, UK), Tom Horlick-Jones (School of Social Sciences at Cardiff University), Tom Horlick‐Jones, John Walls (School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UK)), W Poortinga (0000-0002-6926-8545, Cardiff University), Nick Pidgeon (Cardiff University), Nick F Pidgeon (0000-0002-8991-0398, School of Psychology at the University of Cardiff (UK))
Year2008
Volume17
Issue4
Pages419-441
Publication date2008-10-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePublic Understanding of Science (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0963-6625 • E-ISSN: 1361-6609
PublisherSAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/0963662506075351
OpenAlexW2143934441
LanguageEN
Citations received38
References cited18

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

Economics · Epistemology · Knowledge management · Management science · Normative · Operationalization · Political science · Psychometrics · Public engagement · Public relations · Sociology · Validity · Applied Psychology · Computer Science · Environmental and Social Impact Assessments · Psychology · Risk Perception and Management · Sustainability and Climate Change Governance

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access