Evaluation of two methods of deliberative participation of older people in food-policy development

Timotijević, Lada; Raats, Monique M.

doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2006.09.010

Cited by 41 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, reflecting the findings of other studies, the participants indicated that the group discussions were particularly valuable (Abelson et al, 2003b;Timotijevic and Raats, 2007). They indicated that the deliberative process enabled them to hear alternative positions to their own, then to express opinions, reason with others about their positions, transform their positions based on their exposure to and deliberation about other perspectives and thereby to reach what has been described as metaconsensus Dryzek, 2007-2008), that is, agreement about the nature of the policy issue.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Informing Public Health Policy Through Deliberative Public Engagement: Perceived Impact on Participants and Citizen–Government Relations

Molster

Potts²,

McNamara³

et al. 2013

Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Deliberative public engagement has been proposed for policy development, where issues are complex and there are diverse public perspectives and low awareness of competing issues. Scholars suggest a range of potential outcomes for citizens and government agencies from involvement in such processes. Few studies have examined outcomes from the perspective of citizen participants in deliberative processes. Aims: To examine participant perceptions of their involvement in and outcomes of a deliberative engagement exercise. Method: A case study using semistructured interviews was conducted with participants following a deliberative forum on biobanking. Results: From their involvement in the deliberative exercise, participants described transformations in their knowledge and beliefs about the policy issues. They reported being more informed to the extent of having confidence to educate others and effectively contribute to public policy development. They had developed greater trust in government policymakers who they believed would take reasonable account of their recommendations. Conclusion: We conclude that the participants were satisfied with the outcomes of the deliberative public engagement process and viewed it as an effective means of citizen involvement in public policy development. Particularly for citizens who participate in deliberative processes, such processes may promote active citizenship, empower citizens to undertake representative and educative roles, and improve relations between citizens and government agencies. Actions taken by policymakers subsequent to the deliberative exercise, whereby the majority of citizen recommendations were incorporated in the policy developed, may have contributed to participants holding sustained levels of trust in the commissioning government agency.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Informing Public Health Policy Through Deliberative Public Engagement: Perceived Impact on Participants and Citizen–Government Relations

Molster

Potts²,

McNamara³

et al. 2013

Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…“Process” describes aspects of deliberation that increase the likelihood of a reasonable and consistent outcome; included here are resource accessibility, task definition, structured decision making, and cost-effectiveness. Timotijevic and Raats (2007), in their evaluation of a food-policy deliberation, also use two criteria for evaluation: process and outcome. Their “process” criteria combines elements of Rowe and Frewer’s “process” criteria (task clarity and resource accessibility) and “acceptance” criteria (representation, independence, and transparency) and add five more: trustworthiness, credibility, group dynamics, efficacy, and fairness.…”

Section: Quality Of Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Framework for Assessing the Quality of Democratic Deliberation: Enhancing Deliberation as a Tool for Bioethics

Vries

Stanczyk

Ryan

et al. 2011

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of democratic deliberation (DD) bioethics research is to elicit informed and considered opinions on ethically controversial issues. But the trustworthiness of DD outcomes depends on the quality of deliberations. We provide a framework to evaluate the quality of deliberations and apply that framework to a DD project on surrogate consent for dementia research involving randomly selected samples of the older general public. Using a mixed method approach, we found that participants were very satisfied with the sessions, learned and used new information, were respectful and collaborative, and were able to “reason together” to arrive at societal policy recommendations. Implications and limitations of the paper are also discussed.

show abstract

“…The duration of the session was relatively short in comparison to other juries in that it was limited to one evening. Although it has been identified that shorter juries can yield similar outcomes to extended juries [33, 41], the authors acknowledge that a longer jury or follow-up session (resources permitting) could have been beneficial.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditionally Citizens’ Juries run for several days or weeks depending on the complexity of the issues at hand [30]; however, the issues relating to CoOL were thought to be specific enough to be considered and deliberated effectively in a session of this length. Shorter citizens’ juries have been effective in delivering outcomes (results or findings) successfully [33, 41]. A central disadvantage of a shorter citizens’ jury is allowing sufficient time for deliberation [34].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Obtaining consumer perspectives using a citizens’ jury: does the current country of origin labelling in Australia allow for informed food choices?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundContemporary food systems are vast and complex, creating greater distance between consumers and their food. Consequently, consumers are required to put faith in a system of which they have limited knowledge or control. Country of origin labelling (CoOL) is one mechanism that theoretically enables consumer knowledge of provenance of food products. However, this labelling system has recently come under Australian Government review and recommendations for improvements have been proposed. Consumer engagement in this process has been limited. Therefore this study sought to obtain further consumer opinion on the issue of CoOL and to identify the extent to which Australian consumers agree with Australian Government recommendations for improvements.MethodsA citizens’ jury was conducted with a sample of 14 South Australian consumers to explore their perceptions on whether the CoOL system allows them to make informed food choices, as well as what changes (if any) need to be made to enable informed food choices (recommendations).ResultsOverall, jurors’ perception of usefulness of CoOL, including its ability to enable consumers to make informed food choices, fluctuated throughout the Citizens’ Jury. Initially, the majority of the jurors indicated that the labels allowed informed food choice, however by the end of the session the majority disagreed with this statement. Inconsistencies within jurors’ opinions were observed, particularly following delivery of information from expert witnesses and jury deliberation. Jurors provided recommendations for changes to be made to CoOL, which were similar to those provided in the Australian Government inquiry.ConclusionsConsumers in this study engaged with the topical issue of CoOL and provided their opinions. Overall, consumers do not think that the current CoOL system in Australia enables consumers to make informed choices. Recommendations for changes, including increasing the size of the label and the label’s font, and standardising its position, were made.

show abstract

Evaluation of two methods of deliberative participation of older people in food-policy development

Cited by 41 publications

References 27 publications

Informing Public Health Policy Through Deliberative Public Engagement: Perceived Impact on Participants and Citizen–Government Relations

Informing Public Health Policy Through Deliberative Public Engagement: Perceived Impact on Participants and Citizen–Government Relations

A Framework for Assessing the Quality of Democratic Deliberation: Enhancing Deliberation as a Tool for Bioethics

Obtaining consumer perspectives using a citizens’ jury: does the current country of origin labelling in Australia allow for informed food choices?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About