Assessing Quality of Stakeholder Engagement: From Bureaucracy to Democracy

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Y. Tomkiv, A. Liland, D. Oughton, B. Wynne
{"title":"Assessing Quality of Stakeholder Engagement: From Bureaucracy to Democracy","authors":"Y. Tomkiv, A. Liland, D. Oughton, B. Wynne","doi":"10.1177/0270467618824027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The idea of public or stakeholder engagement in governance of science and technology is widely accepted in many policy and academic research settings. However, this enthusiasm for stakeholder engagement has not necessarily resulted in changes of attitudes toward the role of stakeholders in the dialogue nor to the value of public knowledge, practical experience, and other inputs (like salient questions) vis-à-vis expert knowledge. The formal systems of evaluation of the stakeholder engagement activities are often focused on showing that the method is efficient and works. In this article, we argue that every stakeholder engagement process should be evaluated beyond a simple assessment of the methodology and that the wider context of the stakeholder engagement activity should also be addressed. We evaluate two different stakeholder engagement activities against the existing method evaluation criteria and demonstrate their limitations for assessing the quality of a stakeholder engagement. We argue that these criteria need to be extended so that engagement processes will have a chance to improve not only policies but also their democratic legitimacy.","PeriodicalId":38848,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society","volume":"37 1","pages":"167 - 178"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0270467618824027","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467618824027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

The idea of public or stakeholder engagement in governance of science and technology is widely accepted in many policy and academic research settings. However, this enthusiasm for stakeholder engagement has not necessarily resulted in changes of attitudes toward the role of stakeholders in the dialogue nor to the value of public knowledge, practical experience, and other inputs (like salient questions) vis-à-vis expert knowledge. The formal systems of evaluation of the stakeholder engagement activities are often focused on showing that the method is efficient and works. In this article, we argue that every stakeholder engagement process should be evaluated beyond a simple assessment of the methodology and that the wider context of the stakeholder engagement activity should also be addressed. We evaluate two different stakeholder engagement activities against the existing method evaluation criteria and demonstrate their limitations for assessing the quality of a stakeholder engagement. We argue that these criteria need to be extended so that engagement processes will have a chance to improve not only policies but also their democratic legitimacy.
评估利益相关者参与的质量:从官僚主义到民主
公众或利益相关者参与科技治理的想法在许多政策和学术研究环境中被广泛接受。然而,这种对利益攸关方参与的热情并不一定会导致人们对利益攸关者在对话中的作用的态度发生变化,也不一定会导致对公共知识、实践经验和其他投入(如突出问题)相对于专家知识的价值的态度发生改变。利益相关者参与活动的正式评估系统通常侧重于表明该方法是有效的。在这篇文章中,我们认为,除了对方法进行简单评估之外,还应该对每个利益相关者参与过程进行评估,还应该处理利益相关者互动活动的更广泛背景。我们根据现有的方法评估标准评估了两种不同的利益相关者参与活动,并证明了它们在评估利益相关者的参与质量方面的局限性。我们认为,需要扩大这些标准,以便参与进程不仅有机会改善政策,而且有机会改善其民主合法性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society
Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society Arts and Humanities-History and Philosophy of Science
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信