scholarly journals Does Controversial Science Call For Public Participation? The Case Of Gmo Skepticism

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-50
Author(s):  
Andreas Christiansen ◽  
Karin Jonch-Clausen ◽  
Klemens Kappel
Keyword(s):  
Public Participation ◽  
Science Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Experts ◽  
Policy Making Process

Many instances of new and emerging science and technology are controversial. Although a number of people, including scientific experts, welcome these developments, a considerable skepticism exists among members of the public. The use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a case in point. In science policy and in science communication, it is widely assumed that such controversial science and technology require public participation in the policy-making process. We examine this view, which we call the Public Participation Paradigm, using the case of GMOs as an example. We suggest that a prominent reason behind the call for public participation is the belief that such participation is required for democratic legitimacy. We then show that the most prominent accounts of democratic legitimacy do not, in fact, entail that public participation is required in cases of controversial science in general, or in the case of GMOs in particular.

scholarly journals Science in Parliament

2009 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 48-49
Author(s):  
Ellen Colebrook
Keyword(s):  
Science Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Select Committee ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Science Topic ◽  
Policy Making Process ◽  
Insight Into

Parliamentary Fellowships give PhD students the opportunity to spend 3 months working in Parliament, providing scientific information to policy-makers. Whereas most Fellows work with the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), researching and writing a briefing on a science topic, I had the opportunity to work with the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills (IUSS) Select Committee. The Committee is responsible for scrutinizing science policy across Government. My experience has given me an insight into how science policy is formed, and how scientists can inform the policy-making process.

Partisipasi Masyarakat dalam Proses Kebijakan Daerah

2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-177
Author(s):  
Abdullah Manshur
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
Policy Evaluation ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Problem Situation ◽  
Policy Cycle ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The Public ◽  
Policy Making Process

Public policy is a decision to deal with a particular problem situation, that identifies the objectives, principles, ways, and means to achieve them. The ability and understanding of policy makers in the policy-making process is very important for the realization of public policy of rapid, accurate and adequate. The product to suit the needs of the public policy, public participation in the policy process is needed in the policy cycle, from policy formulation to policy evaluation. This paper attempts to review the importance of community participation and other forms of public participation in the policy process, in particular, policy areas.

Discursive Democracy and New Labour: Five Ways in Which Decision-Makers Manage Citizen Agendas in Public Participation Initiatives

2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Williams
Keyword(s):  
Public Participation ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Local Authority ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
New Labour ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
The Public ◽  
Labour Policy ◽  
The Government

New Labour's conceptualisation of public participation in local government creates a tension in public participation practice. Government legislation and guidance require local authorities to develop and provide citizen-centred services, engage the public in policy-making and respond to the public's views. Seen in this light, New Labour policy draws from radical democratic discourse. However, local authority staff are also expected to act in accordance with the direction set by their line managers, the Council and the government and to inform, engage and persuade the public of the benefit of their authority's policies. In this respect, New Labour policy draws from the discursive model of civil society, conceptualising public participation as a method for engendering civil ownership of the formal structures of representative democracy. Tension is likely to arise when the ideas, opinions and values of the local authority differ from those expressed by the participating public. This paper uses a local ‘public participation’ initiative to investigate how the tension is managed in practice. The study shows how decision-makers dealt with the tension by using participatory initiatives to supply information, understand the views of the public and encourage public support around pre-existing organisational agendas. Problems occurred when citizens introduced new agendas by breaking or manipulating the rules of participation. Decision-makers responded by using a number of distinctive methods for managing citizens’ agendas, some of which were accompanied by strategies for minimising the injury done to citizens’ motivations for further participation. The paper concludes that New Labour policy fails to deal with the tensions between the radical and discursive models of participation and in the final analysis draws mainly from the discursive model of participation. Furthermore, whilst New Labour policy promotes dialogue between the public and local authority, it does not empower local authority staff to achieve the goal of citizen-centred policy-making.

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Carl Purcell
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Child Abuse ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Children's Services ◽  
Public Policy Making ◽  
The Public ◽  
Policy Making Process ◽  
Children’S Services

This chapter outlines the rationale for the book and the contribution it seeks to make to research on children’s services reform and the public policy-making process. The emphasis placed on the influence of child abuse inquiries in previous research in this area is questioned. A brief overview of the chapters that follow is also provided.

scholarly journals The new evidence-based policy: public participation between ‘hard evidence’ and democracy in practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-227
Author(s):  
Helen Pallett
Keyword(s):  
Public Participation ◽  
Science Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Ethnographic Study ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Evidence Based Policy ◽  
Hard Evidence ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk

Background:Debates about evidence-based policy (EBP) were revived in the UK in the 2010s in the context of civil service reform and changing practices of policy making, including institutionalisation of public participation in science policy making. Aims and objectives:This paper aims to explore this revival of interest in EBP in the context of the Government-funded public participation programme Sciencewise, which supports and promotes public dialogues in science policy making. It is based on in-depth ethnographic study of the programme during 2013, considering the impacts on Sciencewise practices and working understandings of engaging in the EBP debate. There is a particular focus on the advantages and disadvantages of categorising public participation as a source of evidence-based policy as opposed to presenting participation as a democratic act which is separate from discussions of EBP. Key conclusions:At different times Sciencewise actors moved between these stances in order to gain credibility and attention for their work, and to situate the outcomes of public participation processes in a broader policy context. In some instances the presentation of outputs from public participation processes as legitimate evidence for policy gave them greater influence and enriched broader discussions about the meaning and practice of open policy. However, it also frequently led to their dismissal on methodological grounds, inhibiting serious engagement with their outputs and challenging internal frameworks for evaluation and learning.

Polar policy making: Two ethnographic accounts of Polar field scientists interacting with Polar governance and policy

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 552-559
Author(s):  
Laura Ferguson
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Science Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Review Article ◽  
Support Staff ◽  
Research Station ◽  
Polar Regions ◽  
Ethnographic Observation ◽  
Science Policy Interface

This review article discusses the recent publications Studying Arctic Fields by Richard C Powell and The Technocratic Antarctic by Jessica O’Reilly. Both books are ethnographic accounts of scientists working in the Polar Regions that analyse interactions at the science–policy interface. Studying Arctic Fields is a detailed story of Canada’s Resolute research station, based on immersive ethnographic observation and communicated through an engaging narrative of colourful stories from Powell’s two summers among the scientists and support staff there. The Technocratic Antarctic treads new ground in its examination of Antarctic social science, presenting the findings of a wide-ranging and thorough research project that engages with the themes of territory, security, processes, practice, problems and science communication. Both publications make valuable contributions to Polar social science and will also appeal to many beyond this.

THE DISABILITY POLICY MAKING PROCESS

2020 ◽  
Vol 559 (10) ◽  
pp. 22-29
Author(s):  
Paweł Kubicki ◽  
Adriana Mica ◽  
Mikołaj Pawlak
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
People With Disabilities ◽  
Disability Policy ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Western Countries ◽  
Public Policy Process ◽  
Policy Making Process

Our goal is to analyze the disability policy making process in Poland on the example of implementing the assumptions of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The key tool we use is the model of the five streams of the public policy process: problem, solutions, politics, process and program. In particular, we look at the role played by the movement of people with disabilities in this process. We claim that the weakness of the movements and the origins of activism of people with disabilities other than in Western countries makes the implementation of the Convention in Poland difficult and often ends in failure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document