How to Account for Asymmetries in Deliberative Dialogues; Comment on “Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study”

Document Type : Commentary

Author

1 International Health Department, Andalusian School of Public Health, Granada, Spain

2 Public Health Research Center of the University of Montreal (CReSP), University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

3 Biosanitary Research Institute of Granada (ibs.GRANADA), Granada, Spain

Abstract

In health policy-making, various deliberative mechanisms can be used to engage the members of the public in exploring what might be a reasonable course of action. Scurr et al take power dynamics into consideration to analyse a deliberative dialogue involving stakeholders with diverse points of view. Given such asymmetries at play, the conclusions of deliberations could be biased. Scholars would benefit from guidance on designing and evaluating deliberative processes. This commentary aims to broadly reflect on the possible sources of power and information asymmetries in deliberative dialogues, and to bring the biographical resources approach to deal with such asymmetries.

Keywords

References

  1. Scurr T, Ganann R, Sibbald SL, Valaitis R, Kothari A. Evaluating public participation in a deliberative dialogue: a single case study. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(11):2638-2650. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.6588
  2. Bohman J. Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1996.
  3. Beauvais E, Baechtiger A. Taking the goals of deliberation seriously: a differentiated view on equality and equity in deliberative designs and processes. J Public Delib. 2016;12(2):2. doi:16997/jdd.254
  4. Young IM. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.
  5. Harris CC, Becker DR, Nielsen EA, Mclaughlin WJ. Public deliberation about salmon restoration impacts: differences in the input of citizens in different community roles. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 2014;16(4):1450033. doi:1142/s1464333214500331
  6. Griffin J, Abdel-Monem T, Tomkins A, Richardson A, Jorgensen S. Understanding participant representativeness in deliberative events: a case study comparing probability and non-probability recruitment strategies. J Public Delib. 2015;11(1):4. doi:16997/jdd.221
  7. Burkhalter S, Gastil J, Kelshaw T. A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face—to—face groups. Commun Theory. 2002;12(4):398-422. doi:1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00276.x
  8. Jimenez-Pernett J, Lehoux P, Olry-de-Labry A, Bermudez-Tamayo C. Accounting for power imbalances in online public deliberations. A systematic review of asymmetry measures. Health Policy Technol. 2023;12(1):100721. doi:1016/j.hlpt.2022.100721
  9. Gerber M. Equal partners in dialogue? Participation equality in a transnational deliberative poll (Europolis). Polit Stud. 2015;63(1 Suppl):110-130. doi:1111/1467-9248.12183
  10. French D, Laver M. Participation bias, durable opinion shifts and sabotage through withdrawal in citizens' juries. Polit Stud. 2009;57(2):422-450. doi:1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00785.x
  11. Goold SD, Danis M, Abelson J, et al. Evaluating community deliberations about health research priorities. Health Expect. 2019;22(4):772-784. doi:1111/hex.12931
  12. Showers E, Tindall N, Davies T. Equality of participation online versus face to face: condensed analysis of the community forum deliberative methods demonstration. Lect Notes Comput Sci. 2015;9249:53-67. doi:1007/978-3-319-22500-5_5
  13. Polletta F, Chen PCB. Gender and public talk: accounting for women's variable participation in the public sphere. Sociol Theory. 2013;31(4):291-317. doi:1177/0735275113515172
  14. Karpowitz CF, Raphael C, Hammond AS. Deliberative democracy and inequality: two cheers for enclave deliberation among the disempowered. Polit Soc. 2009;37(4):576-615. doi:1177/0032329209349226
  15. Stangherlin G. [The biographical approach of public engagement in advanced modernity]. Rech Sociol Anthropol. 2006;37(37-1):143-158. doi:4000/rsa.616

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 25 September 2022
  • Revise Date: 20 February 2023
  • Accept Date: 26 February 2023
  • First Publish Date: 28 February 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics