IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v2y2014i1p32-44.html

Engaging the Public in Policy Research: Are Community Researchers the Answer?

Author

Listed:
  • Liz Richardson

    (School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK)

Abstract

A case has been made for engaging the public in scientific research as co-producers of knowledge. These arguments challenge elite models of policy research and suggest the need for an ambitious expansion of more inclusive scientific public policy research. Enabling the public to be meaningfully involved in complex policy research remains a challenge. This paper explores a range of attempts to involving the public in public policy research. It uses a binary framing to typify some key debates and differences in approaches between community-based participatory research, and citizen science. Approaches to community-based participatory research in the social sciences offer a set of engagement principles which are an alternative to an elite model of policy research. Citizen science offers a focus on the use of scientific methods by lay people, but this approach is currently under-utilized in public policy research and could be expanded. How could the strengths of each be more fully integrated and harnessed? A case study of community policy research is presented, in which an attempt was made to use a more fully integrated approach in a local policy context, identifying the potential and challenges. Based on a framework of three features of democratic and scientific policy research, it argues that more public participation in public policy research would be helped by more attention to the strengths of the democratic potential emphasised by participatory community-based research, alongside the potential of scientific robustness em-phasised by citizen science. One conclusion drawn is that a professional and scientific orientation to public policy re-search can be retained without necessarily being professionally dominated. Research methods and skills are tools to which more people outside the profession could have access, if academics facilitate the process of democratization of policy research.

Suggested Citation

  • Liz Richardson, 2014. "Engaging the Public in Policy Research: Are Community Researchers the Answer?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(1), pages 32-44.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v2:y:2014:i:1:p:32-44
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.v2i1.19
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/19
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.v2i1.19?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Trickett, E.J., 2011. "Community-based participatory research as worldview or instrumental Strategy: Is it lost in translation(al) research?," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 101(8), pages 1353-1355.
    2. Donald P. Green, 2013. "Breaking Empirical Deadlocks in the Study of Partisanship: An Overview of Experimental Research Strategies," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(1), pages 6-15.
    3. Fiona Armstrong & Adrian Alsop, 2010. "Debate: Co-production can contribute to research impact in the social sciences," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(4), pages 208-210, July.
    4. Donald P. Green, 2013. "Breaking Empirical Deadlocks in the Study of Partisanship: An Overview of Experimental Research Strategies," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(1), pages 6-15.
    5. Cornwall, Andrea & Jewkes, Rachel, 1995. "What is participatory research?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(12), pages 1667-1676, December.
    6. Steve Martin, 2010. "Co-production of social research: strategies for engaged scholarship," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(4), pages 211-218, July.
    7. Katz, D.L. & Murimi, M. & Gonzalez, A. & Njike, V. & Green, L.W., 2011. "From controlled trial to community adoption: The multisite translational community trial," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 101(8), pages 17-27.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liz Richardson, 2014. "Engaging the Public in Policy Research: Are Community Researchers the Answer?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(1), pages 32-44.
    2. Alexandra Albert, 2021. "Citizen social science in practice: the case of the Empty Houses Project," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. John Shields & Valerie Preston & Ted Richmond & Yuko Sorano & Erika Gasse-Gates & Debbie Douglas & John Campey & Lesley Johnston, 2015. "Knowledge Mobilization/Transfer and Immigration Policy: Forging Space for NGOs—the Case of CERIS—The Ontario Metropolis Centre," Journal of International Migration and Integration, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 265-278, May.
    4. Cole, Stroma & Wardana, Agung & Dharmiasih, Wiwik, 2021. "Making an impact on Bali's water crisis: Research to mobilize NGOs, the tourism industry and policy makers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    5. Gamel Abdul-Nasser Salifu, 2022. "From Margins to Centre: Relocating Youth Participation in Radical Politics of International Development," International Journal of Business Administration, International Journal of Business Administration, Sciedu Press, vol. 13(3), pages 45-58, May.
    6. Caroline Patsias & Anne Latendresse & Laurence Bherer, 2013. "Participatory Democracy, Decentralization and Local Governance: the Montreal Participatory Budget in the light of ‘Empowered Participatory Governance’," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 2214-2230, November.
    7. Lauren Arundell & Kate Parker & Jo Salmon & Jenny Veitch & Anna Timperio, 2019. "Informing Behaviour Change: What Sedentary Behaviours Do Families Perform at Home and How Can They Be Targeted?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-12, November.
    8. Mike Kesby, 2007. "Spatialising Participatory Approaches: The Contribution of Geography to a Mature Debate," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 39(12), pages 2813-2831, December.
    9. Andreas Neef & Dieter Neubert, 2011. "Stakeholder participation in agricultural research projects: a conceptual framework for reflection and decision-making," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(2), pages 179-194, June.
    10. A. T. Ismail-Zadeh & S. L. Cutter & K. Takeuchi & D. Paton, 2017. "Forging a paradigm shift in disaster science," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 86(2), pages 969-988, March.
    11. Ines Testoni & Irene Nencioni & Maibrit Arbien & Erika Iacona & Francesca Marrella & Vittoria Gorzegno & Cristina Selmi & Francesca Vianello & Alfonso Nava & Adriano Zamperini & Michael Alexander Wies, 2021. "Mental Health in Prison: Integrating the Perspectives of Prison Staff," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-14, October.
    12. Rau, Henrike & Goggins, Gary & Fahy, Frances, 2018. "From invisibility to impact: Recognising the scientific and societal relevance of interdisciplinary sustainability research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 266-276.
    13. Ghosh, Smita & Struminger, Bruce B. & Singla, Neeta & Roth, Brenna M. & Kumar, Anil & Anand, Sunil & Mtete, Emmanuel & Lusekelo, Jacob & Massawe, Irene & Jarpe-Ratner, Elizabeth & Seweryn, Steven M. &, 2022. "Appreciative inquiry and the co-creation of an evaluation framework for Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) implementation: a two-country experience," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    14. Marj Plumb & Senaida Fernandez Poole & Heather Sarantis & Susan Braun & Janna Cordeiro & Juliana Van Olphen & Marion Kavanaugh-Lynch, 2019. "Development and Evaluation of a Training Program for Community-Based Participatory Research in Breast Cancer," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-16, November.
    15. Emma Jakku & Peter Thorburn, 2009. "A Conceptual Framework for Guiding the Participatory Development of Agricultural Decision Support Systems," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-12, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    16. Zemadim, B. & McCartney, Matthew & Langan, Simon & Sharma, Bharat, 2013. "A participatory approach for hydrometeorological monitoring in the Blue Nile River Basin of Ethiopia," IWMI Reports 201009, International Water Management Institute.
    17. repec:ksb:journl:v:2:y:2009:i:1:p:19-33 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Benjamin Bergerot, 2022. "The Citizen Science Paradox," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-12, July.
    19. Elisabeth Dorant & Theresia Krieger, 2017. "Contextual Exploration of a New Family Caregiver Support Concept for Geriatric Settings Using a Participatory Health Research Strategy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-16, November.
    20. Lisa M. Vaughn & MaryAnn Lohmueller, 2014. "Calling All Stakeholders," Evaluation Review, , vol. 38(4), pages 336-355, August.
    21. Ana Deaconu & Malek Batal & Claudia Irene Calderón & Patrick Caron & Jessica Mcnally & Emile Frison & Geneviève Mercille & Mylène Riva & Ben Brisbois, 2024. "Food systems innovation to nurture equity and resilience globally (food SINERGY): Insights from the food SINERGY network," Post-Print hal-05182602, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v2:y:2014:i:1:p:32-44. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.