2018/03/04 by Gene Rowe, Richard Watermeyer, Richard Patrick Watermeyer
Environmental Science · Social Sciences · #Computer science #Criticism #Democracy #Dilemma #Environmental and Social Impact Assessments #Epistemology #Interpretation (philosophy) #Law #Political science #Politics #Public participation #Public policy #Public relations #Quality (philosophy) #Relevance (law) #Representation (politics) #Risk Perception and Management #Sociology #Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
paper · doi:10.1080/01442872.2018.1451502
crossref issued 2018/03/04 · crossref published 2018/03/04 · crossref published-print 2018/03/04 · openalex publication_date 2018/03/04 · crossref published-online 2018/03/20 · crossref created 2018/03/20 · crossref deposited 2021/06/14 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/04 · crossref indexed 2026/08/04
Public participation is ubiquitous in many contemporary democratic societies – used for many purposes, and in many contexts, with particular and growing relevance for policy-making on science and technology issues. However, there is a dearth of evidence as to its qualities and benefits. We contend that the implementation and interpretation of participation faces a number of dilemmas that – together –undermine its successful adoption. In this paper, we identify and discuss six specific dilemmas that – together – may militate against the practice and development of good quality participation in science and technology policy, notably dilemmas of Timing; of Relevance; of Representation; of Evaluation; of Criticism; and of Impact. We theoretically account for these dilemmas and discuss their likely impacts. Finally, we provide some suggestions as to how the participation community might attempt to pre-empt difficulties due to these dilemmas and demonstrate participation effectiveness.