In recent years, there has been increased
interest in involving the public in decision making about science and
technology policy, such as on issues concerning the management of environmental
and health risks. Involvement may be achieved in different ways: at the lowest
level, the public may be targeted with enhanced information (e.g., about
risks). At higher levels, public views may be actively solicited through such mechanisms
as consultation exercises, focus groups, and questionnaires.
Denna text fokuserar på (Rowe & Frewer 2000; 2005) tankar kring "public engagement" (som är ett bredare begrepp än "public participation"):
Enligt citatet ovan kan allmänheten engageras på en låg nivå genom “enhanced information (vilket enligt Rowe & Frewer (2000; 2005) kan kallas “public communication”). På en “högre nivå” kan allmänheten “be actively solicited through such mechanisms as consultation exercises…” (något som Rove & Frewer benämner “public consultation”). Rove & Frewer (2000, s 4) beskriver vidare att allmänheten kan involveras på ”stil higer level” genom metoder som ”consultation exercises, focus groups, and questionnaires”. De olika metoderna för allmänhetens medverkan (”public participation”) sträcker sig med andra ord enligt Rowe & Frewer från enbart kommunikation från verksamhetsutövare till allmänhet, via ”enkla” undersökningar, till ”complex deliberative”-anslag:
These range from
simple surveys to complex deliberative approaches involving members of the
public taking part in groups or conferences, which attempt to structure the
debate and provide balanced information on the issue (e.g., citizens’ juries).
(Rove & Frewer 2000) listar åtta olika sätt (här anges företrädelsevis de engelska orden efter bra svenska översättningar fattas): “public participation” kan ske på: folkomröstning, ”public hearings”, “public opinion survey”, “negotiated role making”, “consensus conference”, “citizens jury/panel”, “citizen adivsory committee” och ”focus group”. Rove & Frewer (2000) utvärderar dem utifrån fem “acceptance” kriterier (bl a: “representativeness of participations”, “early involvement?”, “influence on final policy” och tranparens) och fem process kriterier (bl a: ”task definition”, “structured decision making” och ”cost-effectiveness”). Visa metoder klarar sig bra rörande “acceptance” men inte rörande “process” kriterierna:
Referenda, public opinion surveys, and focus
groups do reasonably well on acceptance criteria but not on process criteria.
From this, we suggest that although these methods might gain a fair amount of
credibility with the public, the quality of the decisions that arise from their
implementation may not be high—and this would clearly be of concern to a
sponsor.
The public hearing, however—which is
perhaps the most widespread method for engaging the public—scores relatively
low on both acceptance and process criteria. In the past, public hearings have
been perceived as being quick, cheap, and simply administered means of
satisfying any legal requirement for public participation and seen as giving
the appearance of community involvement. Their disadvantages, however, seem
numerous. For example, they are commonly held during weekday working hours in
locations that are “formidable” to the public (e.g., government buildings),
which may disadvantage low-income and minority citizens and have a negative
impact on the representativeness of those attending. Communication at hearings
is primarily one-way—consisting of presentations and testimony—involving little
debate with the various stakeholders (scoring low on the influence criterion). Indeed,
public hearings often seem designed to contain and control participation by
allowing only limited choices on narrow, short-term questions at a late stage of
the policy process, and so they also score low on the early involvement
criterion. It has been suggested that their main aim is often to co-opt public
support and to change decisions rather than to seek informed consent and expand democratic choice.
(Rove & Frewer 2000, s 18)
(Rove & Frewer 2000, s 18)
Rove & Frewer (2000, s 24) diskuterar hur beslut formas, och att gruppbeteende och gruppsykologi också måste förklaras och beaktas för att förstå problematiken för att arbeta med olika metoder för allmänhetens deltagande i planeringen av framtidens samhälle:
Providing support for both decision making
and group behaviour is an important component of a wider concern for creating
an appropriate environment (with all appropriate resources) to enable lay
members of the public to contribute effectively to complex and important policy
issues. Naturally, the more complex the intervention is, the more expensive it
is likely to be for a sponsor. However, the potential damage that might be
caused to public trust—and, indeed, to public health and welfare from a poorly
made decision— must also be considered by the sponsor.
From our analysis, it is difficult at this
juncture to categorically declare that any one method is the best. Indeed, Smith,
Nell, and Prystupa (1997) conclude—and in this we agree—that the most
appropriate techniques for public participation are likely to be hybrids of
more traditional methods. Similarly, Fiorino (1990) suggests that a potentially
effective approach to participation may be to complement one mechanism with
another—such as using a survey to clarify the bases of disagreement on
issues prior to a series of public hearings or using a series of citizens’
panels to add balance and depth to what policy makers might learn in open
hearings.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar