The Jury is Out: How Far Can Participatory Projects Go Towards Reclaiming Democracy?

Wakeford, Tom; Singh, Jasber; Murtuja, Bano; Bryant, Peter; Pimbert, Michel

doi:10.4135/9781848607934.n30

Cited by 12 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It fueled a more widely felt scepticism about officially organized public participation as a tool to whitewash policies (Wakeford et al, 2007). As such, it also gave rise to the development of alternative citizen panel approaches, such as a do-it-yourself citizens jury to articulate subaltern perspectives and develop activities for engaging with hegemonic public discourses (DIY Jury Steering Group and the Policy Ethics and Life Sciences (PEALS) Research Centre, 2003;Soneryd and Amelung, 2016;Wakeford et al, 2004).…”

Section: Reflexive Engagement and Public Assessment Of Technologies Omentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The boom of invited and professionally organized participation in the United Kingdom was said to produce public views using procedures that were not transparent in how they shaped the outcome of participation exercises (Parkinson, 2004(Parkinson, , 2006Wakeford et al, 2007). Moreover, the hybridization of citizen participation with logics and methodologies from marketing and public relations research became an issue of critical academic study (Lezaun, 2007).…”

Section: Inter-local Exchanges and The Proliferation Of Design Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Innovating public participation methods: Technoscientization and reflexive engagement

Voß

Amelung

2016

Soc Stud Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We reconstruct the innovation journey of 'citizen panels', as a family of participation methods, over four decades and across different sites of development and application. A process of aggregation leads from local practices of designing participatory procedures like the citizens jury, planning cell, or consensus conference in the 1970s and 1980s, to the disembedding and proliferation of procedural formats in the 1990s, and into the trans-local consolidation of participatory practices through laboratory-based expertise since about 2000. Our account highlights a central irony: antitechnocratic engagements with governance gave birth to efforts at establishing technoscientific control over questions of political procedure. But such efforts have been met with various forms of reflexive engagement that draw out implications and turn design questions back into matters of concern. An emerging informal assessment regime for technologies of participation as yet prevents closure on one dominant global design for democracy beyond the state.

show abstract

Section: Reflexive Engagement and Public Assessment Of Technologies Omentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Inter-local Exchanges and The Proliferation Of Design Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Innovating public participation methods: Technoscientization and reflexive engagement

Voß

Amelung

2016

Soc Stud Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is a far cry from the participatory research paradigm. Some attempts have been made to define and put into practice 'bottom up' deliberation (Wakeford, 2007;Wakeford and Singh, 2008), but this is by no means the norm.…”

Section: Deliberation As Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is a spectrum of representativeness, from statistically representative deliberative polls, via purposive sampling and small non-random groups, to self-selection or use of preexisting groups. Dienel (1999) and Fishkin and Luskin (2005) favour random sampling in order to be able to test statistical significance and produce generalisable results but Wakeford (2007) rejects statistical representativeness because it reproduces the minority status of groups who are already marginalised. In many cases, participants are recruited because of particular roles they occupy -for example, as patients or service users -or because of their socio-demographic characteristics, for example to address Wakeford's concerns by 'over-sampling' minority groups.…”

Section: Selection Of Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberative research as a tool to make value judgements

Burchardt

2013

Qualitative Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of deliberation as a research technique (as opposed to policymaking or public consultation) is distinctive: to uncover the public’s informed, considered and collective view on a normative question. Such questions often arise in relation to research on poverty and inequality, where there is a need to justify the thresholds and concepts adopted on a deeper basis than convention alone can offer. But can deliberative research provide the answer, and if so in what circumstances? By comparing deliberative research to more traditional methods, such as in-depth interviewing, attitudinal surveys, ethnography and participatory approaches, this article reveals that deliberative designs involve a number of assumptions, including a strong fact/value distinction, an emphasis on ‘outsider’ expertise and a view of participants as essentially similar to each other rather than defined by socio-demographic differences. Using an example of deliberative research in which the author was involved, developing a list of ‘capabilities’ for monitoring inequalities in Britain, it also demonstrates that normative decisions permeate the design and implementation of deliberative research in practice. Thus, while deliberative research has the potential to provide uniquely considered, insightful and well-justified answers to the problem of defining a collective position on key questions in social science, it is currently under-theorised as an approach, and transparency at all stages of the process is essential to avoid the charge of simply reflecting the researchers’ implicit values.

show abstract

“…Two widespread publications of the IPPR 32 became carriers used by diverse adopters to implement the design. About 500 citizen jury-type exercises were conducted on health, genetically modified organisms, education and television 33 , and mainly conducted by IPPR, research institutes and marketing agencies. The range of commissioning bodies grew to include local governments and health authorities, NGOs, regulatory bodies.…”

Section: Emergence Of Parallel Design Models As Competition and Co-exmentioning

confidence: 99%

The emergence of citizen panels as a de facto standard

Amelung¹

2012

quaderni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Jury is Out: How Far Can Participatory Projects Go Towards Reclaiming Democracy?

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Innovating public participation methods: Technoscientization and reflexive engagement

Innovating public participation methods: Technoscientization and reflexive engagement

Deliberative research as a tool to make value judgements

The emergence of citizen panels as a de facto standard

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About