Enhancing Multiple Ways of Knowing; Comment on “Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study”

Document Type : Commentary


1 Black Dog Institute, Sydney, NSW, Australia

2 Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

3 Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada


This commentary reviews the Scurr and colleagues’ article published in International Journal of Health Policy and Management in February 2022 on “Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study.” Schur adds to the current knowledge base by extending the stakeholder groups in deliberative dialogues (DD) to members of the affected community, a practice not commonly used in such DD strategies. Their study supports the inclusion of public participants in such dialogues, and offers practical guidelines for ways in which to accommodate these important participants. This commentary highlights the need to acknowledge diverse types of knowing into what is considered evidence and advocates for evidence to include a wide-ranging variety of sources including tacit knowledge via experience and ongoing learning.


  1. Lavis JN, Boyko JA, Oxman AD, Lewin S, Fretheim A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 14: organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7(Suppl 1):S14. doi:1186/1478-4505-7-s1-s14
  2. Moat KA, Lavis JN, Clancy SJ, El-Jardali F, Pantoja T. Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt. Bull World Health Organ. 2014;92(1):20-28. doi:2471/blt.12.116806
  3. Boyko JA, Lavis JN, Dobbins M. Deliberative dialogues as a strategy for system-level knowledge translation and exchange. Healthc Policy. 2014;9(4):122-131.
  4. Boyko JA, Lavis JN, Abelson J, Dobbins M, Carter N. Deliberative dialogues as a mechanism for knowledge translation and exchange in health systems decision-making. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(11):1938-1945. doi:1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.016
  5. Lavis JN, Boyko JA, Gauvin FP. Evaluating deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1287. doi:1186/1471-2458-14-1287
  6. Boyko JA, Kothari A, Wathen CN. Moving knowledge about family violence into public health policy and practice: a mixed method study of a deliberative dialogue. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14:31. doi:1186/s12961-016-0100-9
  7. Boydell KM, Christensen H. Deliberative Dialogues to Share Findings of a White Paper on Suicide Prevention. Summary 1 and 2. Sydney, Australia: Black Dog Institute; 2020.
  8. Boydell KM, Dew A, Hodgins M, et al. Deliberative dialogues between policy makers and researchers in Canada and Australia. J Disabil Policy Stud. 2017;28(1):13-22. doi:1177/1044207317694840
  9. 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
  10. Oliver K, Boaz A. Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations. Palgrave Commun. 2019;5(1):60. doi:1057/s41599-019-0266-1
  11. Gabbay J, le May A. Practice-Based Evidence for Healthcare: Clinical Mindlines. Abingdon: Routledge; 2011. p. 269.
  12. Gabbay J, le May A. Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed "mindlines?" Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care. BMJ. 2004;329(7473):1013. doi:1136/bmj.329.7473.1013
  13. Oliver K, Pearce W. Three lessons from evidence-based medicine and policy: increase transparency, balance inputs and understand power. Palgrave Commun. 2017;3(1):43. doi:1057/s41599-017-0045-9
  14. Farr M. Power dynamics and collaborative mechanisms in co-production and co-design processes. Crit Soc Policy. 2018;38(4):623-644. doi:1177/0261018317747444
  15. Halvorsrud K, Kucharska J, Adlington K, et al. Identifying evidence of effectiveness in the co-creation of research: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the international healthcare literature. J Public Health (Oxf). 2021;43(1):197-208. doi:1093/pubmed/fdz126
  16. Greenhalgh T, Jackson C, Shaw S, Janamian T. Achieving research impact through co-creation in community-based health services: literature review and case study. Milbank Q. 2016;94(2):392-429. doi:1111/1468-0009.12197