有目的的慎思:慎思公民参与卫生政策

IF 1.1 4区 管理学 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Joanna Massie
{"title":"有目的的慎思:慎思公民参与卫生政策","authors":"Joanna Massie","doi":"10.1111/capa.12545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article seeks to understand why deliberative civic engagement is chosen as a method of engagement by policymakers, using two jurisdictions as exploratory cases: the Nova Scotia Health Authority's <i>Community Conversations about Collaborative Family Practice Teams</i> and Algoma Ontario Health Team's <i>Citizen Reference Panel on Integrated Care</i>. The purpose is to interrogate a presumption that deliberative civic engagement is choice driven by an alignment between the goals of engagement and theories of deliberation. I find that in both instances, policymakers chose deliberative civic engagement largely because of situational factors, rather than through the theoretical claims of different methods of engagement and the goals of the engagement activity. I argue that for practitioners seeking to embed deliberative processes, greater consideration should be given to the contextual factors that enable or inhibit the commissioning of such activities.</p>","PeriodicalId":46145,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Public Administration-Administration Publique Du Canada","volume":"66 4","pages":"556-573"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/capa.12545","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deliberating with purpose: Deliberative civic engagement for health policy\",\"authors\":\"Joanna Massie\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/capa.12545\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This article seeks to understand why deliberative civic engagement is chosen as a method of engagement by policymakers, using two jurisdictions as exploratory cases: the Nova Scotia Health Authority's <i>Community Conversations about Collaborative Family Practice Teams</i> and Algoma Ontario Health Team's <i>Citizen Reference Panel on Integrated Care</i>. The purpose is to interrogate a presumption that deliberative civic engagement is choice driven by an alignment between the goals of engagement and theories of deliberation. I find that in both instances, policymakers chose deliberative civic engagement largely because of situational factors, rather than through the theoretical claims of different methods of engagement and the goals of the engagement activity. I argue that for practitioners seeking to embed deliberative processes, greater consideration should be given to the contextual factors that enable or inhibit the commissioning of such activities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46145,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Public Administration-Administration Publique Du Canada\",\"volume\":\"66 4\",\"pages\":\"556-573\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/capa.12545\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Public Administration-Administration Publique Du Canada\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/capa.12545\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Public Administration-Administration Publique Du Canada","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/capa.12545","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文试图通过两个辖区的探索性案例,了解为什么政策制定者会选择商议式公民参与作为一种参与方法:新斯科舍省卫生局的 "关于合作家庭实践团队的社区对话 "和阿尔戈马安大略省卫生团队的 "综合医疗公民参考小组"。其目的在于质疑一种假定,即公民参与商议是由参与目标与商议理论之间的一致性所驱动的选择。我发现,在这两个案例中,决策者选择商议式公民参与主要是由于情境因素,而不是通过不同参与方法的理论主张和参与活动的目标。我认为,对于寻求嵌入商议过程的实践者来说,应更多地考虑促成或抑制委托此类活动的背景因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Deliberating with purpose: Deliberative civic engagement for health policy

This article seeks to understand why deliberative civic engagement is chosen as a method of engagement by policymakers, using two jurisdictions as exploratory cases: the Nova Scotia Health Authority's Community Conversations about Collaborative Family Practice Teams and Algoma Ontario Health Team's Citizen Reference Panel on Integrated Care. The purpose is to interrogate a presumption that deliberative civic engagement is choice driven by an alignment between the goals of engagement and theories of deliberation. I find that in both instances, policymakers chose deliberative civic engagement largely because of situational factors, rather than through the theoretical claims of different methods of engagement and the goals of the engagement activity. I argue that for practitioners seeking to embed deliberative processes, greater consideration should be given to the contextual factors that enable or inhibit the commissioning of such activities.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
20.00%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: Canadian Public Administration/Administration publique du Canada is the refereed scholarly publication of the Institute of Public Administration of Canada (IPAC). It covers executive, legislative, judicial and quasi-judicial functions at all three levels of Canadian government. Published quarterly, the journal focuses mainly on Canadian issues but also welcomes manuscripts which compare Canadian public sector institutions and practices with those in other countries or examine issues in other countries or international organizations which are of interest to the public administration community in Canada.
×
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