微公众与政策影响分析:公民大会对社会关怀的过滤

IF 3.8 3区 管理学 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Lynne Poole, Stephen Elstub
{"title":"微公众与政策影响分析:公民大会对社会关怀的过滤","authors":"Lynne Poole, Stephen Elstub","doi":"10.1007/s11077-025-09567-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The use of mini-publics to enable some citizens to feed policy recommendations into public policy processes is gaining popularity. However, assessing whether and to what extent mini-publics have policy impact is extremely challenging due to the complexity of policy processes. We make the case for a new approach to analysing mini-public policy impact with respect to an analysis of the journeys made by each mini-public recommendation, with a view to developing a better understanding of their influence within the specific policy context in which they operate. We propose that employing a ‘filtration’ lens enables a consideration of not only which recommendations are accepted, rejected or ignored by public authorities, but whether they are reconceptualised. We develop a framework that enables the classification of the recommendations and their policy journeys and apply it to the Citizens’ Assembly on Social Care, commissioned by select committees in the House of Commons. Through analysis of the grey literature around the case we were able to establish the type of journey each recommendation had undergone. This provided us with nuanced analysis of what was filtered out, where, how, by whom, and why. We therefore believe the framework is a significant addition to the toolkit of those researching mini-publics.</p>","PeriodicalId":51433,"journal":{"name":"Policy Sciences","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mini-publics and policy impact analysis: filtration in the citizens’ assembly on social care\",\"authors\":\"Lynne Poole, Stephen Elstub\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11077-025-09567-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The use of mini-publics to enable some citizens to feed policy recommendations into public policy processes is gaining popularity. However, assessing whether and to what extent mini-publics have policy impact is extremely challenging due to the complexity of policy processes. We make the case for a new approach to analysing mini-public policy impact with respect to an analysis of the journeys made by each mini-public recommendation, with a view to developing a better understanding of their influence within the specific policy context in which they operate. We propose that employing a ‘filtration’ lens enables a consideration of not only which recommendations are accepted, rejected or ignored by public authorities, but whether they are reconceptualised. We develop a framework that enables the classification of the recommendations and their policy journeys and apply it to the Citizens’ Assembly on Social Care, commissioned by select committees in the House of Commons. Through analysis of the grey literature around the case we were able to establish the type of journey each recommendation had undergone. This provided us with nuanced analysis of what was filtered out, where, how, by whom, and why. We therefore believe the framework is a significant addition to the toolkit of those researching mini-publics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51433,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy Sciences\",\"volume\":\"54 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-025-09567-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-025-09567-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

利用微型公众使一些公民能够向公共政策过程提供政策建议的做法越来越受欢迎。然而,由于政策过程的复杂性,评估微型公众是否具有政策影响以及在多大程度上具有政策影响极具挑战性。我们通过分析每项小型公共建议的实施过程,提出了一种分析小型公共政策影响的新方法,以期更好地了解它们在具体政策背景下的影响。我们建议使用“过滤”镜头,不仅可以考虑哪些建议被公共当局接受、拒绝或忽略,还可以考虑它们是否被重新概念化。我们开发了一个框架,可以对建议及其政策旅程进行分类,并将其应用于下议院特别委员会委托的社会关怀公民大会。通过对案例周围灰色文献的分析,我们能够确定每个推荐经历的旅程类型。这为我们提供了细致入微的分析,包括哪些内容被过滤掉了,在哪里,如何,由谁以及为什么被过滤掉了。因此,我们认为该框架是对那些研究迷你公众的工具包的重要补充。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mini-publics and policy impact analysis: filtration in the citizens’ assembly on social care

The use of mini-publics to enable some citizens to feed policy recommendations into public policy processes is gaining popularity. However, assessing whether and to what extent mini-publics have policy impact is extremely challenging due to the complexity of policy processes. We make the case for a new approach to analysing mini-public policy impact with respect to an analysis of the journeys made by each mini-public recommendation, with a view to developing a better understanding of their influence within the specific policy context in which they operate. We propose that employing a ‘filtration’ lens enables a consideration of not only which recommendations are accepted, rejected or ignored by public authorities, but whether they are reconceptualised. We develop a framework that enables the classification of the recommendations and their policy journeys and apply it to the Citizens’ Assembly on Social Care, commissioned by select committees in the House of Commons. Through analysis of the grey literature around the case we were able to establish the type of journey each recommendation had undergone. This provided us with nuanced analysis of what was filtered out, where, how, by whom, and why. We therefore believe the framework is a significant addition to the toolkit of those researching mini-publics.

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
Policy Sciences
Policy Sciences Multiple-
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
9.40%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: The policy sciences are distinctive within the policy movement in that they embrace the scholarly traditions innovated and elaborated by Harold D. Lasswell and Myres S. McDougal. Within these pages we provide space for approaches that are problem-oriented, contextual, and multi-method in orientation. There are many other journals in which authors can take top-down, deductive, and large-sample approach or adopt a primarily theoretical focus. Policy Sciences encourages systematic and empirical investigations in which problems are clearly identified from a practical and theoretical perspective, are well situated in the extant literature, and are investigated utilizing methodologies compatible with contextual, as opposed to reductionist, understandings. We tend not to publish pieces that are solely theoretical, but favor works in which the applied policy lessons are clearly articulated. Policy Sciences favors, but does not publish exclusively, works that either explicitly or implicitly utilize the policy sciences framework. The policy sciences can be applied to articles with greater or lesser intensity to accommodate the focus of an author’s work. At the minimum, this means taking a problem oriented, multi-method or contextual approach. At the fullest expression, it may mean leveraging central theory or explicitly applying aspects of the framework, which is comprised of three principal dimensions: (1) social process, which is mapped in terms of participants, perspectives, situations, base values, strategies, outcomes and effects, with values (power, wealth, enlightenment, skill, rectitude, respect, well-being, and affection) being the key elements in understanding participants’ behaviors and interactions; (2) decision process, which is mapped in terms of seven functions—intelligence, promotion, prescription, invocation, application, termination, and appraisal; and (3) problem orientation, which comprises the intellectual tasks of clarifying goals, describing trends, analyzing conditions, projecting developments, and inventing, evaluating, and selecting alternatives. There is a more extensive core literature that also applies and can be visited at the policy sciences website: http://www.policysciences.org/classicworks.cfm. In addition to articles that explicitly utilize the policy sciences framework, Policy Sciences has a long tradition of publishing papers that draw on various aspects of that framework and its central theory as well as high quality conceptual pieces that address key challenges, opportunities, or approaches in ways congruent with the perspective that this journal strives to maintain and extend.Officially cited as: Policy Sci
×
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