Persuasion in a Toxic Community: Rhetorical Aspects of Public Meetings

Kaminstein, Dana

doi:10.17730/humo.55.4.f08081n88554tl17

Cited by 22 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some empirical studies support criticism of the public meeting process (see Table 1 and (19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)). For example, authors note the overrepresentation of opponents compared with proponents (19) and some demographic differences between the general public and meeting participants (20,21).…”

Section: Effective Public Meetings?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In-depth cases of the Army Corps of Engineers' public participation efforts included portrayal of public meetings with hundreds of opponents loudly resisting the agency's "decide, announce, defend" approach to governing (22). Also, a study of 23 public meetings dealing with cleanup of a hazardous waste site found that the process imposed by the government led to participants feeling patronized and frustrated (23). In addition, government agencies unduly limited the scope of discussion to exclude social issues (24) or nontechnical concerns of participants (23).…”

Section: Effective Public Meetings?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works?

Chess

Purcell

1999

Environ. Sci. Technol.

409

302

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This literature review of studies on public meetings, workshops, and community advisory committees discusses public participation based on empirical evidence. Public participation "success" is defined by researchers' criteria that are divided into two categories: (1) those that evaluate the success of the participatory process and (2) those that evaluate the success of the outcome of the process. We find the form of participationspublic meetings, workshops, or citizen advisory committeessdoes not determine process or outcome success. Therefore, attempts to develop a typology of public participation efforts may be problematic. However, we find some empirical support for practitioners' other widely accepted "rules of thumb"."The common practice of eliciting comments only after most of the work of reaching a decision has been done is cause for resentment of risk decisions.... Many decisions can be better informed and their information base can be more credible if the interested and affected parties are appropriately and effectively involved..." (1)."Experience increasingly shows that risk management decisions that are made in collaboration with stakeholders are more effective and more durable." (2).Two major national reports have called for more involvement of outside stakeholders in agency decision making about risk (1, 2). Despite fears of some scientists that participatory processes can swamp good science, these reports encourage agencies to take collaborative approaches to environmental problem solving. The following review of public participation studies seeks to ground discussions of implementation of public participation in empirical evidence, dating back to the 1970s when seminal research was spurred by the enactment of federal environmental statutes that mandated public participation.

show abstract

Section: Effective Public Meetings?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Effective Public Meetings?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works?

Chess

Purcell

1999

Environ. Sci. Technol.

409

302

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another explanation, however, is that the earlier discourse discouraged identification of this issue. As Kaminstein (1996) asserts, because the language of scientific discourse does not leave room for the language of emotions, members of the public are often unable to fully express themselves in public hearings.…”

Section: Definitional Hegemonymentioning

confidence: 99%

Muting the Voice of the Local in the Age of the Global: How Communication Practices Compromised Public Participation in India's Allain Dunhangan Environmental Impact Assessment

Martin¹

2007

Environmental Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…(9−11) Other studies have examined strategies for responding to hostile questions at public meetings (12) or the persuasive aspects of public meetings. (13) Two studies that investigated outcomes of public meetings did not include data on attendees' opinions. (14,15) In another somewhat related study, Sandman et al used news reports of hypothetical public meetings to examine how agency response was associated with community outrage and risk perceptions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Meetings and Risk Amplification: A Longitudinal Study

McComas¹

2003

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article offers longitudinal data tracking people who did and did not attend a series of public meetings in an upstate New York rural community grappling with the expansion of an existing solid waste landfill and remediation of an adjacent inactive hazardous waste site. Before and after the public meetings, mailed questionnaires measured risk perceptions and perceived credibility of risk managers (here, the state government agencies and the responsible industry) conducting the meetings. Respondents at each measurement point included meeting attendees and nonattendees, with some fluctuation over time when attendees at one measurement point were nonattendees at the next and vice versa. The results from the first survey indicate that following the first two public meetings, attendees perceived greater risks from the waste sites than did nonattendees; attendees also perceived the risk managers as less credible. After the third public meeting, the results showed that attendees' risk perceptions remained steady; however, perceptions of government agency credibility significantly decreased. After the fourth public meeting, the survey found that attendees' risk perceptions were again not significantly different, whereas perceptions of government agency credibility increased significantly. The industry's credibility also increased, though only among attendees who had attended the most recent public meeting, not among attendees who had attended both the third and fourth public meetings. For nonattendees, risk perceptions and credibility ratings did not change. The discussion examines how distinctive characteristics of communication at each public meeting may have resulted in different effects and proposes hypotheses for future research.

show abstract

Persuasion in a Toxic Community: Rhetorical Aspects of Public Meetings

Cited by 22 publications

References 4 publications

Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works?

Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works?

Muting the Voice of the Local in the Age of the Global: How Communication Practices Compromised Public Participation in India's Allain Dunhangan Environmental Impact Assessment

Public Meetings and Risk Amplification: A Longitudinal Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About