Restricted access

Research article

First published online February 1, 2008

Request permissions

Drama, Talk, and Emotion: Omitted Aspects of Public Participation

Matthew HarveyView all authors and affiliations

Volume 34, Issue 2

https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907309632

Abstract
References

Abstract

This article argues that the quantitative and quasi-experimental approach to evaluating public participation exercises is deficient in at least two respects. First, casting participants in instrumental terms excludes that participants have an experience and that this may be dramatic and emotional. If people are to be invited, even obliged, to participate, then this experience should be considered in event evaluation. Second, current evaluation frameworks tend not to be sensitive to what actually happened in terms of the actions of participants and how these influenced the proceedings and outcome, thus ignoring that such events are fora where positions, values, decisions, and so forth are constructed and constrained rather than simply reported. This article considers the possible contribution of dramaturgical, discourse and conversation analytic, and ethnographic and phenomenological approaches to evaluating participation exercises and illustrates their potential with data gathered during the U.K. “GM Nation?” public debate.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

1.

1. GM Nation considered genetic modification in the context of the commercialization of genetically modified crops and comprised more than 600 public meetings as well as expert reviews of economic and scientific aspects. See Steering Board (2003) for further details.

2.

2. Agenda 21 is an international initiative to work toward sustainable development, and at this time in the United Kingdom, government is encouraging local authorities to develop an agenda 21 strategy.

3.

3. By “participant,” I mean here as if one were a public participant.

References

Abelson, J., P.-G. Forest, J. Eyles, P. Smith, E. Martin, and F.-P. Gauvin. 2003. Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science and Medicine 57 (2): 239-25.

Barnes, M. 1999. Building a deliberative democracy: An evaluation of two citizens' juries. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.

Brink, P., and N. Edgecombe. 2003. What is becoming of ethnography? Qualitative Health Research 13 (7): 1028-30.

Carr, D., and K. Halvorsen. 2001. An evaluation of three democratic, community-based approaches to citizen participation: Surveys, conversations with community groups, and community dinners. Society and Natural Resources 14 (2): 107-26.

Chess, C., and K. Purcell. 1999. Public participation and the environment: Do we know what works? Environmental Science and Technology 33 (16): 2685-92.

Cook, A., K. Moore, and G. Steel. 2005. Taking a position: A reinterpretation of the theory of planned behaviour. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 35 (2): 143-54.

Davies, B., and R. Harré. 1991. Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 20 (1): 44-63.

Davies, C., M. Wetherell, and E. Barnett. 2006. Citizens at the centre: Deliberative participation in healthcare decisions. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

Davies, C., M. Wetherell, E. Barnett, and S. Seymour-Smith . 2005. Opening the box: Evaluating the Citizens Council of NICE. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

Denscombe, M. 2003. The good research guide. 2d ed. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Eden, S. 1996. Public participation in environmental policy: Considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions. Public Understanding of Science 5 (3): 183-204.

Einsiedel, E., E. Jelsoe, and T. Breck. 2001. Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science 10 (1): 83-98.

Estlund, D. 2002. Introduction. In Democracy, edited by D. Estlund, 1-28. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Gastil, J. 2006. How balanced discussion shaped knowledge, public perceptions, and attitudes: A case study of deliberation on the Los Alamos National Laboratory . Journal of Public Deliberation 2 (1): article 4.

Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Goven, J. 2003. Deploying the consensus conference in New Zealand: Democracy and de-problematization. Public Understanding of Science 12 (4): 423-40.

Grove-White, R., P. Macnaghten, S. Mayer, and B. Wynne. 1997. Uncertain world: Genetically modified organisms, food and public attitudes in Britain. London : CSEC/Unilever.

Guston, D. 1999. Evaluating the first US consensus conference: The impact of the Citizens' Panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science, Technology, & Human Values 24 (4): 451-82.

Habermas, J. 1970a. On systematically distorted communication. Inquiry 13 (3): 205-18.

---. 1970b. Toward a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry 13 (4): 360-75.

---. 1971. Toward a rational society: Student protest, science, and politics. London: Heinemann.

---. 1996. Between facts and norms. Cambridge, UK: Basil Polity.

Hammersley, M., and P. Atkinson. 1995. Ethnography: Principles in practice . 2d ed. London: Routledge.

Harré, R. 1979. Social being: A theory for social psychology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

---. 2003. Disputes as complex social events: On the uses of positioning theory. Common Knowledge 9 (1): 100-18.

Harré, R., D. Clarke, and N. De Carlo . 1985. Motives and mechanisms: An introduction to the psychology of action. London: Methuen.

Harvey, M. 2005. Citizens, experts and technoscience: A case study of "GM Nation? The Public Debate." PhD diss., Cardiff University, UK.

Heritage, J. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Hoggett, P., and S. Thompson. 2002. Toward a democracy of the emotions. Constellations 9 (1): 106-26.

Horlick-Jones, T., J. Walls, G. Rowe, N. Pidgeon, W. Poortinga, and T. O'Riordan. 2004. A deliberative future? An independent evaluation of the GM Nation? Public Debate about the possible commercialisation of transgenic crops in Britain 2003. Understanding Risk working paper 04-02, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

Housley, W. 1999. Role as an interactional device and resource in multidisciplinary team meetings. Sociological Research Online 4 (3). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/4/3/housley.html .

Husserl, E. 1970. The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology . Evanston, IL: Northwestern University press.

Innes, J., and D. Booher. 2003. Collaborative policymaking: Governance through dialogue. In Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society, edited by M. Hajer and H. Wagenaar, 33-59. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Irwin, A. 1995. Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge.

---. 2001. Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10 (1): 1-18.

Lopez, K., and D. Willis. 2004. Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: Their contributions to nursing knowledge. Qualitative Health Research 14 (5): 726-35.

Maso, I. 2001. Phenomenology and ethnography. In Handbook of ethnography, edited by P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, and L. Lofland, 136-44. London: Sage.

Murdock, B., C. Wiessner, and K. Sexton. 2005. Stakeholder participation in voluntary environmental agreements: Analysis of 10 project XL case studies. Science, Technology, & Human Values 30 (2): 223-50.

Nelkin, D. 1975. The political impact of technical expertise. Social Studies of Science 5 (1): 35-54.

Owens, S. 2000. "Engaging the public": Information and deliberation in environmental policy. Environment and Planning A 32 (7): 1141-48.

Potter, J., and M. Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and social psychology. London: Sage.

Purdue, D. 1999. Experiments in the governance of biotechnology: A case study of the UK National Consensus Conference. New Genetics and Society 18 (1): 79-99.

Renn, O. 1992. The social arena concept of risk debates. In Social theories of risk, edited by S. Krimsky and D. Golding, 179-96. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Rowe, G., and L. Frewer. 2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values 25 (1): 3-29.

---. 2004. Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values 29 (4): 512-56.

---. 2005. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values 30 (2): 251-90.

Rowe, G., R. Marsh, and L. Frewer. 2004. Evaluation of a deliberative conference . Science, Technology, & Human Values 29 (1): 88-121.

Saward, M. 2003. Enacting democracy. Political Studies 51 (1): 161-79.

Schutz, A. 1967. The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Shaw, W. 1995. Spying in guru land: Inside Britain's cults. London: Fourth Estate.

Steering Board. 2003. GM Nation? The findings of the public debate. London: Department of Trade and Industry.

Thompson, S., and P. Hoggett. 2001. The emotional dynamics of deliberative democracy. Policy & Politics 29 (3): 351-64.

Webler, T. 1995. Right discourse in public participation: An evaluative yardstick. In Fairness and competence in public discourse: Evaluating models for environmental discourse, edited by O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedermann, 35-86. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

Webler, T., and S. Tuler. 2000. Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Theoretical reflections from a case study. Administration & Society 32 (5): 566-95.

Webler, T., S. Tuler, and R. Krueger. 2001. What is a good participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management 27 (3): 435-50.

West, M., and J. Gastil. 2004. Deliberation at the margins: Participant accounts of face-to-face public deliberation at the 1999-2000 World Trade protests in Seattle and Prague. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication 5 (1): 1-7.

Wynne, B. 1982. Rationality and ritual: The Windscale inquiry and nuclear decisions in Britain. Chalfont St Giles: British Society for the History of Science.

---. 2003. Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism. Social Studies of Science 33 (3): 401-17.

You currently have no access to this content. Visit the access options page to authenticate.