Maximizing the Policy Impacts of Public Engagement

Abstract

There is a lack of published evidence which demonstrates the impacts of public engagement (PE) in science and technology policy. This might represent the failure of PE to achieve policy impacts or indicate a lack of effective procedures for discerning the uptake by policy makers of PEderived outputs. While efforts have been made to identify and categorize different types of policy impact, research has rarely attempted to link policy impact with PE procedures, political procedures, or the connections between them. In this article, we propose a simple conceptual model to capture this information, based on semistructured interviews with both policy makers and PE practitioners. A range of criteria are identified to increase the policy impact of PE. The role of PE practitioners in realizing impacts through their interactions with policy makers in the informal ''in-between'' spaces of public engagement is emphasized. However, the potential contradictions between the pursuit of policy impacts and the more traditional conceptualizations of PE effectiveness are discussed. The main barrier to the identification of policy impacts from PE may lie within policy processes themselves. Political institutions have responsibility to establish formalized procedures for monitoring the uptake and use of evidence from PE in their decision-making processes.

Policy Evolution in the Chinese PPP Market: The Shifting Strategies of Governmental Support Measures

“…Economic, social and environmental impacts are the central aspects and cost-effectiveness or risk analysis used to be applied in this approach. However, this method is often used to evaluate an isolated policy and not a series of policies on the same theme [47,49]. Policy documents are the main research materials in certain studies [24,27,28,38,39,[50][51][52].…”

A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work?

“…Coglianese ; Cook & Kothari ; Gerrits & Edelenbos ; Lane & Corbett ; Scott ; Staddon et al ). When stakeholder and public engagement fails to deliver expected outcomes, this can inflame latent conflicts, turning a conflict of interests into much deeper and more intractable issues, which may escalate into alienation and distrust (Emery et al ). For example, Redpath et al (, p 100) argue that a lack of engagement, or “tokenistic” approaches to engagement, “when conservationists assert their interests to the detriment of others,” is to blame for many conservation conflicts.…”

The dark side of public participation: Participative processes that legitimize elected officials’ values

“…The author had to piece together the works of multiple authors to build a conceptual framework that only begins to appraise the congruity of a process with its normative claims. But the most convincing illustration of the literature's power blindness lies in a criticism made against it for some time: the theorized benefits of public participation have not been the object of sufficient, rigorous empirical testing (Abelson and Gauvin ; Catt and Murphy ; Conrad et al ; Cooke and Kothari ; Emery et al ). Have scholars been praising a pluralist heaven that exists only in theory?…”