Qualitative research and deliberative methods: Promise or peril?

Qualitative Research

Volumn 9, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 625-643

  Evans, Robert ^a   Kotchetkova, Inna ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Deliberative research; Diabetes; Focus groups; Medical technologies; Public participation; Role of social scientists in research

Indexed keywords

EID: 70749124317     PISSN: 14687941     EISSN: 17413109     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1468794109343630     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Abelson, J., Forest, P.G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E. and Gauvin, F.P. (2003) Deliberations about Deliberative Methods: Issues in the Design and Evaluation of Public Participation Processes, Social Science and Medicine 57: 239-51.
2. Barnes, M. (2005) The Same Old Process? Older People, Participation and Deliberation, Ageing & Society 25(2): 245-59.
3. Bohman, J. (2000) Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. London: MIT Press.
4. Burgess, J., Stirling, A., Clark, J., Davies, G., Eames, M., Staley, K. and Williamson, S. (2007) Deliberative Mapping: A Novel Analytic-Deliberative Methodology to Support Contested Science-Policy Decisions, Public Understanding of Science 16(3): 299-322.
5. Callon, M. and Rabeharisoa, V. (2004) Gino's Lesson on Humanity: Genetics, Mutual Entanglements and the Sociologist's Role, Economy and Society 33(1): 1-27, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0308514042000176711.
6. Collins, H.M. and Evans, R.J. (2002) The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience, Social Studies of Sciences 32(2): 235-96.
7. Collins, H.M. and Evans, R.J. (2007) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
8. CST - Council for Science and Technology (2005) Policy through Dialog, URL (consulted 15 February 2008): http://www.2.cst.gov.uk/cst/reports/files/policythrough-dialogue/report.pdf.
9. Cunningham-Burley, S., Faulkner, W., Parry, S. and Smith, A. (2009) Talking about Stem Cell Research: Homepage, URL (consulted 16 June 2009): http://www.talkingstemcells.ed.ac.uk/.
10. Davies, G., Burgess, J., Eames, M., Mayer, S., Staley, K., Stirling, A. and Williamson, S. (2003) 'Deliberative Mapping: Appraising Options for Addressing the Kidney Gap (Final Report to the Wellcome Trust)', URL (consulted 4 June 2008): http://www.deliberative-mapping.org/project.htm.
11. DBT - Danish Board of Technology (2009) The Consensus Conference, URL (consulted 16 June 2009): http://www.tekno.dk/subpage.php3?article=468&toppic=kategori12&language=uk.
12. Dryzek, J.S. (1994) Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. DTI - Department of Trade and Industry (2003) GM Nation?: The Findings of the Public Debate. London: DTI. URL (consulted 6 May 2004): http://www.gmpublicdebate.org.uk/docs/gmnation_finalreport.pdf.
14. Dunkerley, D. and Glasner, P. (1998) Empowering the Public? Citizens Juries and the New Genetic Technologies, Critical Public Health 8(3): 81-192.
15. Evans, R. and Plows, A. (2007) Listening Without Prejudice? Re-Discovering the Value of the Disinterested Citizen, Social Studies of Science 37(6): 827-54.
16. Fishkin, J.S. (1991) Democracy and Deliberation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17. Glasner, P. and Dunkerley, D. (1999) The New Genetics, Public Involvement, and Citizens' Juries: A Welsh Case Study, Health, Risk and Society 1(3): 313-24.
18. Guston, D.H. (1999) Evaluating the First U.S. Consensus Conference: The Impact of the Citizens' Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy, Science Technology & Human Values 24(4): 451-82.
19. Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., O'Riordan, T. and Murdock, G. (2007) The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement. London: Routledge.
20. House of Lords (2000) Science and Society: Science and Technology Select Committee, Third Report. London: HMSO. URL (consulted 23 January 2002): http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm.
21. Irwin, A. and Michael, M. (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press/ McGraw-Hill.
22. Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S. and Tutton, R. (2007) Shifting Subject Positions: Experts and Lay People in Public Dialogue, Social Studies of Science 37(3): 385-411.
23. Kotchetkova, I., Evans, R. and Langer, S. (2008) Articulating Contextualized Knowledge: Focus Groups and/as Public Participation?, Science as Culture 17(1): 71-84.
24. March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1989) Rediscovering Institutions. New York: The Free Press.
25. Morgan, D.L. (1996) Focus Groups, Annual Review of Sociology 22: 129-52.
26. Nanojury (2005) Nanojury: Homepage, URL (consulted 16 June 2009): http://www.nanojury.org.uk/index.html.
27. OST - Office of Science and Technology (2002) The Government's Approach to Public Dialogue on Science and Technology. London: OST. URL (consulted 27 September 2005): http://www.ost.gov.uk/society/public_dialogue.htm.
28. Pattison Report (2005) UK Stem Cell Initiative. URL (consulted 9 July 2007): http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/uksci/index.htm.
29. Pelletier, D., Kraak, V., McCullum, C., Uusitalo, U. and Rich, R. (1999) The Shaping of Collective Values through Deliberative Democracy: An Empirical Study from New York's North Country, Policy Sciences 32: 103-31.
30. POST - Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2001) Open Channels: Public Dialogue in Science and Technology, Report No. 153 (March 2001). London: HMSO.
31. RCEP - Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1998). 21st Report: Setting Environmental Standards [Cm 4053]. London: HMSO.
32. Reason, P. (1994) Three Approaches to Participative Inquiry, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 324-39. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33. Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2001) Introduction: Inquiry and Participation in Search of a World Worthy of Human Aspiration, in P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds) Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, pp. 1-14. London: Sage.
34. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2004) Evaluating Public Participation Exercises, Science Technology & Human Values 29(4): 512-57.
35. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2005) A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms, Science, Technology & Human Values 30(2): 251-90.
36. Wakeford, T. (2002) Citizens Juries: A Radical Alternative for Social Research, Social Research Update 37, URL (consulted 3 October 2004): http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU37.html.
37. Webler, T. (1995) Right Discourse in Citizen Participation: An Evaluative Yardstick, in O. Renn, T. Webler and P. Wiedemann (eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, pp. 35-86. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
38. WGP - Wales Gene Park (2004) Citizens' Jury on Designer Babies, URL (consulted 16 June 2009): http://www.wgp.cf.ac.uk/CitizensJury.htm.
39. Young, I.M. (2000) Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.