IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v4y2018i1d10.1057_s41599-018-0183-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Elements of success in multi-stakeholder deliberation platforms

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Garard

    (Working Group Scientific Assessments, Ethics, and Public Policy
    Technische Universität Berlin)

  • Larissa Koch

    (University of Osnabrück)

  • Martin Kowarsch

    (Working Group Scientific Assessments, Ethics, and Public Policy)

Abstract

Deliberation platforms are an important component of the multi-actor science-policy interface within the realm of environmental governance, increasingly characterized by the engagement of a diversity of actors. Deliberation platforms provide a mechanism through which stakeholders with diverse perspectives can both discuss problems and explore potential solutions related to environmental governance, integrating scientific and other knowledge. This study employs a Qualitative Content Analysis of 16 semi-structured interviews to investigate which elements of deliberation platforms are most central to their success and how these elements interact with one another from the perspective of public engagers. This fills a gap in the literature on the qualification of knowledge and experience of public engagers regarding the organization of multi-stakeholder deliberation platforms. Elements to consider in the organization of deliberation platforms were ranked, and five central elements were identified: (1) the selection of participants relevant to the topic and conducive to positive interactions, (2) openness as an attitude in both organizers and participants, (3) facilitation of interactions and the role of the facilitator, (4) communication and transparency between organizers and participants, and (5) fostering dialog between participants through various means. Different manifestations of these five central elements which can fit best within different particular contexts and suit various objectives are also investigated based on the interview material. The discussion summarizes the lessons learned with regards to organizing deliberation platforms from the perspective of public engagers, and explores the potential for trade-offs and co-benefits between central elements as a means to improve the efficiency and efficacy of organizing such platforms. Furthermore, the links between the central elements and social learning, as a particular, overarching objective of deliberation platforms, are discussed. This study is an important step towards further analysis of deliberation platforms, necessary in order to avoid the risks of convening actors with diverse perspectives to discuss politically-relevant topics. It provides insights relevant to public engagers and to future studies analyzing these increasingly important venues for engagement in environmental governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Garard & Larissa Koch & Martin Kowarsch, 2018. "Elements of success in multi-stakeholder deliberation platforms," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:4:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-018-0183-8
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-018-0183-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-018-0183-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-018-0183-8?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helga Nowotny, 2003. "Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 151-156, June.
    2. Robert E. Goodin & Simon J. Niemeyer, 2003. "When Does Deliberation Begin? Internal Reflection versus Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(4), pages 627-649, December.
    3. M. Muro & P. Jeffrey, 2008. "A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(3), pages 325-344.
    4. Singh, Bhawna & Strømman, Anders H. & Hertwich, Edgar G., 2012. "Scenarios for the environmental impact of fossil fuel power: Co-benefits and trade-offs of carbon capture and storage," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 762-770.
    5. Tomas M. Koontz, 2014. "Social learning in collaborative watershed planning: the importance of process control and efficacy," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(10), pages 1572-1593, October.
    6. Robert E. Goodin & Simon J. Niemeyer, 2003. "When Does Deliberation Begin? Internal Reflection versus Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51, pages 627-649, December.
    7. Anna Wesselink & Jouni Paavola & Oliver Fritsch & Ortwin Renn, 2011. "Rationales for Public Participation in Environmental Policy and Governance: Practitioners' Perspectives," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(11), pages 2688-2704, November.
    8. Thomas C. Beierle, 2002. "The Quality of Stakeholder‐Based Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 739-749, August.
    9. Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
    10. Marcel J. Dorsch & Christian Flachsland, 2017. "A Polycentric Approach to Global Climate Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(2), pages 45-64, May.
    11. Oliver Escobar, 2014. "Upstream public engagement, downstream policy-making? The Brain Imaging Dialogue as a community of inquiry," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 480-492.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yuwan Malakar & Justine Lacey & Paul M Bertsch, 2022. "Towards responsible science and technology: How nanotechnology research and development is shaping risk governance practices in Australia," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Tasos Hovardas, 2021. "Social Sustainability as Social Learning: Insights from Multi-Stakeholder Environmental Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Müller-Hansen, Finn & Lee, Yuan Ting & Callaghan, Max & Jankin, Slava & Minx, Jan C., 2022. "The German coal debate on Twitter: Reactions to a corporate policy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).

    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. Michael Haus & David Sweeting, 2006. "Local Democracy and Political Leadership: Drawing a Map," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(2), pages 267-288, June.
    2. Viola Hakkarainen & Katri Mäkinen‐Rostedt & Andra Horcea‐Milcu & Dalia D'Amato & Johanna Jämsä & Katriina Soini, 2022. "Transdisciplinary research in natural resources management: Towards an integrative and transformative use of co‐concepts," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 309-325, April.
    3. Andrés Rolando Ciro Gómez, 2020. "El derecho fundamental a deliberar : análisis de la moralidad política de su privación a los miembros de la Fuerza Pública en Colombia," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1187, October.
    4. Ensor, Jonathan & de Bruin, Annemarieke, 2022. "The role of learning in farmer-led innovation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    5. Alex Y Lo & Kim S Alexander & Wendy Proctor & Anthony Ryan, 2013. "Reciprocity as Deliberative Capacity: Lessons from a Citizen's Deliberation on Carbon Pricing Mechanisms in Australia," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(3), pages 444-459, June.
    6. Lisette Beek & Niek Mouter & Peter Pelzer & Maarten Hajer & Detlef Vuuren, 2024. "Experts and expertise in practices of citizen engagement in climate policy: a comparative analysis of two contrasting cases," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(1), pages 1-22, January.
    7. Jonathan Benson, 2019. "Deliberative democracy and the problem of tacit knowledge," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 18(1), pages 76-97, February.
    8. repec:sae:envval:v:18:y:2009:i:2:p:129-152 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Anna Ernst, 2018. "Does Participation Foster Transformation Processes towards Sustainable Energy Systems? A Case Study of the German Energy Transformation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-27, November.
    10. Shane Doheny & Claire O'Neill, 2010. "Becoming Deliberative Citizens: The Moral Learning Process of the Citizen Juror," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 630-648, October.
    11. Sarah P. Church & Kristin M. Floress & Jessica D. Ulrich-Schad & Chloe B. Wardropper & Pranay Ranjan & Weston M. Eaton & Stephen Gasteyer & Adena Rissman, 2021. "How water quality improvement efforts influence urban–agricultural relationships," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(2), pages 481-498, June.
    12. Valerie P. Hans & John Gastil & Traci Feller, 2014. "Deliberative Democracy and the American Civil Jury," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 697-717, December.
    13. Joanna Sleigh & Shannon Hubbs & Alessandro Blasimme & Effy Vayena, 2024. "Can digital tools foster ethical deliberation?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    14. Ben B Davies & Kirsty Blackstock & Felix Rauschmayer, 2005. "‘Recruitment’, ‘Composition’, and ‘Mandate’ Issues in Deliberative Processes: Should we Focus on Arguments Rather than Individuals?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 23(4), pages 599-615, August.
    15. Jin Guo & Junhong Bai, 2019. "The Role of Public Participation in Environmental Governance: Empirical Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-19, August.
    16. Andrew G.H. Thompson & Oliver Escobar & Jennifer J. Roberts & Stephen Elstub & Niccole M. Pamphilis, 2021. "The Importance of Context and the Effect of Information and Deliberation on Opinion Change Regarding Environmental Issues in Citizens’ Juries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-21, September.
    17. Mathew Humphrey, 2006. "Democratic Legitimacy, Public Justification and Environmental Direct Action," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(2), pages 310-327, June.
    18. Liu, Shuang & Hurley, Michael & Lowell, Kim E. & Siddique, Abu-Baker M. & Diggle, Art & Cook, David C., 2011. "An integrated decision-support approach in prioritizing risks of non-indigenous species in the face of high uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1924-1930, September.
    19. Alfred Moore, 2010. "Public Bioethics and Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 715-730, October.
    20. Damien French & Michael Laver, 2009. "Participation Bias, Durable Opinion Shifts and Sabotage through Withdrawal in Citizens' Juries," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57(2), pages 422-450, June.
    21. Jennifer J. Roberts & Ruth Lightbody & Ragne Low & Stephen Elstub, 2020. "Experts and evidence in deliberation: scrutinising the role of witnesses and evidence in mini-publics, a case study," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(1), pages 3-32, March.

    More about this item

    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:pal:palcom:v:4:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-018-0183-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.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.