The “participatory turn” cutting across technical approaches for appraising environment, risk, science, and technology has been accompanied by intense debates over the desired nature, extent, and quality of public engagement in science. Burgeoning work evaluating the effectiveness of such processes and the social study of science in society more generally is notable, however, for lacking systematic understanding of the very actors shaping these new forms science-society interaction. This paper addresses this lacuna by drawing on United Kingdom based in-depth empirical research that made space for participatory appraisal experts to reflect on effective practice and novel questions of competence, expertise, and citizen-specialist relations within analytic-deliberative processes. Emerging practitioner principles warn that existing participatory models have not sufficiently considered constructivist perspectives on knowledge, analysis, and deliberation. Effective participatory appraisal under uncertainty needs to guard against the “technocracy of participation” by opening up to diversity, difference, antagonism, and uncertainties/indeterminacies.
Abelson, J., P. Forest, J. Eyles, P. Smith, E. Martin, and F. Gauvin.2003. Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science and Medicine57:239-51.
2.
Bohman, J.2000. Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
Burgess, J., and J. Chilvers.2006. Upping the ante: A conceptual framework for designing and evaluating participatory technology assessments. Science and Public Policy33 (10): 713-28.
4.
Burgess, J., and J. Clark.2006. Evaluating public and stakeholder engagement strategies in environmental governance. In Interfaces between Science and Society, ed. A. Peirez, S. Vaz, and S. Tognetti , 225-52. Sheffield: Greenleaf Press.
5.
Burgess, J., C.M. Harrison, and P. Filius.1998. Environmental communication and the cultural politics of environmental citizenship. Environment and Planning A30 (8): 1445-60.
6.
Charney, J.2000. Democratic science: Enhancing the role of science in stakeholder-based risk management decision-making. Washington, DC: HealthRisk Strategies.
7.
Chilvers, J.2005. Democratising science in the UK: The case of radioactive waste management. In Science and citizens, ed.M. Leach, I. Scoones , and B. Wynne, 237-43. London : Zed Press.
8.
———. 2007. Towards analytic-deliberative forms of risk governance in the UK? Reflections on learning in radioactive waste. Journal of Risk Research10 (2): 197-222.
9.
———. in press. Environmental risk, uncertainty and participation: Mapping an emergent epistemic community. Environment and Planning A.
10.
Chilvers, J., J. Burgess, and J. Murlis.2003. Managing radioactive waste safely. Participatory methods workshop report—vol. 1: Final report. Defra/RAS/03.001/Vol1. London: Defra. Available from http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/publications/complete/pdf/defra_ras-03-001vol1.pdf (accessed December 17, 2004).
11.
Collins, H.M., and R. Evans.2002. The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science32:235-96.
12.
Cooke, B., and U. Kothari , eds. 2001. Participation: The new tyranny?London: Zed Books.
13.
Cornwall, A., and G. Pratt.2003. Pathways to participation: Reflections on PRA. London: ITDG Publishing .
14.
CoRWM (Committee on Radioactive Waste Management).2006. Managing our radioactive waste safety: CoRWM's recommendations to government, July 2006. Available from http://www.corwm.org.uk/pdf/FullReport.pdf (accessed November 6, 2006).
15.
Davies, G.2006a. The sacred and the profane: Biotechnology, rationality, and public debate. Environment and Planning A38:423-43.
16.
———. 2006b. Mapping deliberation: Calculation, articulation and intervention in the politics of organ transplantation. Economy and Society35 (2): 232-58.
17.
Davies, G., and J. Burgess.2004. Challenging the “view from nowhere”: Citizen reflections on specialist expertise in a deliberative process. Health and Place10:349-61.
18.
European Commission.2001. European governance: A white paper, COM (2001) 428. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
19.
Fiorino, D.1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values15:226-43.
20.
Fischer, F.2000. Citizens, experts and the environment. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
21.
Fischhoff, B.1995. Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis15:137-45.
22.
Funtowicz, S.O., and J.R. Ravetz.1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures25 (7): 739-55.
23.
Gecp2000. Risky choices, soft disasters: Environmental decision-making under uncertainty. A summary report of findings from the ESRC Global Environmental Change Programme . Sussex: University of Sussex.
24.
Habermas, J.1984. Theory of communicative action—volume 1: Reason and the rationalisation of society. Boston: Beacon Press.
25.
———. 1987. Theory of communicative action—volume 2: System and lifeworld. Boston: Beacon Press .
26.
Hinchliffe, S.2001. Indeterminacy in-decisions—science, policy and politics in the BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) crisis. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers26 (2): 182-204.
27.
House of Lords.2000. Science and society. London: The Stationary Office.
———. 2001. Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science10 (1): 1-18.
30.
———. 2006. The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the `new' scientific governance. Social Studies of Science36 (2): 299-320.
31.
Irwin, A., and M. Michael.2003. Science, social theory and public knowledge . Maidenhead: Open University Press .
32.
Jasanoff, S., and B. Wynne.1998. Science and decision making. In Human choice and climate change: Volume 1. The societal framework , ed. S. M. Rayner and E. L. Malone, 1-87. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.
33.
Joss, S., and S. Bellucci.2002. Participatory technology assessment: European perspectives. London: Centre for the Study of Democracy.
34.
Kasemir, B., J. Jager, C.C. Jaeger, and M.T. Gardner.2003. Public participation in sustainability science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Kuhn, T.S.1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
36.
Laird, F.1993. Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Science, Technology, & Human Values18 (3): 341-61.
37.
Latour, B.1987. Science in Action. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
38.
Leach, M., I. Scoones , and B. Wynne, eds. 2005. Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement. London: Zed Press .
39.
Limoges, C.1993. Expert knowledge and decision-making in controversy contexts . Public Understanding of Science2:417-26.
40.
Mouffe, C.1999. Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research66 (3): 745-58.
41.
Niemeyer, S., and C. Spash.2001. Environmental valuation analysis, public deliberation, and their pragmatic syntheses: A critical appraisal. Environment and Planning C19:567-85.
42.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons.2001. Rethinking Science. Cambridge: Polity Press.
43.
Oecd.1979. Technology on trial: Public participation in decision-making related to science and technology . Paris: OECD.
44.
Owens, S., T. Rayner, and O. Bina.2004. New agendas for appraisal: Reflections on theory, practice and research. Environment and Planning A36:1943-59.
45.
Pellizzoni, L.2001. The myth of the best argument: Power, deliberation and reason. British Journal of Sociology52:59-86.
46.
———. 2003. Uncertainty and participatory democracy. Environmental Values12:195-224.
47.
Perhac, R.M.1998. Comparative risk assessment: Where does the public fit in? Science, Technology, & Human Values23 (2): 221-41.
48.
Petts, J.1997. The public-expert interface in local waste management decisions: Expertise, credibility and process. Public Understanding of Science6 (4): 359-81.
49.
Petts, J., J. Homan, and S. Pollard.2003. Participatory risk assessment: Involving lay audiences in environmental decisions on risk, Environment Agency R&D Technical Report E2-043/ TR/01. Bristol: Environment Agency.
50.
Petts, J., and B. Leach.2000. Evaluating methods for public participation: Literature review. Environment Agency R&D Technical Report E135. Bristol: Environment Agency.
51.
Post.2001. Open channels: Public dialogue in science and technology. London: Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology .
52.
Rcep.1998. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 21st Report: Setting environmental standards. London: HMSO.
53.
Renn, O., and D. Levine.1991Credibility and trust in risk communication . In Communicating Risks to the Public, ed. R. Kasperson, 175-219. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
54.
Renn, O., T. Webler, H. Rakel, P. Dienel, and B. Johnson.1993. Public-participation in decision-making: A 3-step procedure. Policy Sciences26 (3): 189-214.
55.
Renn, O., T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, eds. 1995. Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
56.
Rose, N.1999. Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57.
Rowe, G., and L. Frewer.2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science Technology, & Human Values25 (1): 3-29.
58.
———. 2004. Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology, &Human Values29 (4): 512-57.
59.
Rowe, G., T. Horlick-Jones, J. Walls, and N. Pidgeon.2005. Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: Reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? Public debate about transgenic crops. Public Understanding of Science14 (4): 331-52.
60.
Santos, S., and C. Chess.2003. Evaluating citizen advisory boards: The importance of theory and participant-based criteria and practical implications . Risk Analysis23 (2): 269-79.
61.
Stern, P., and H. Fineberg , eds. 1996. Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington: National Research Council.
62.
Stirling, A.2005. Opening up or closing down: Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. In Science and citizens, ed. M. Leach, I. Scoones, and B. Wynne , 218-31. London: Zed Books.
63.
Stirling, A., and S. Mayer.2001. A novel approach to the appraisal of technological risk: A multicriteria mapping study of a genetically modified crop. Environment and Planning C19 (4): 529-55.
64.
Webler, T.1995. Right discourse in citizen participation: An evaluative yardstick. In Fairness and competence in citizen participation , ed. O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, 35-86. Dordrecht : Kluwer.
65.
———. 1998. The craft and theory of public participation: A dialectical process. Journal of Risk Research2 (1): 55-71.
66.
Webler, T., H. Kastenholz, and O. Renn.1995. Public participation in impact assessment: A social learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review15:443-63.
67.
Webler, T., S. Tuler, and R. Krueger.2001. What is a good participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management27 (3): 435-50.
68.
Wilsdon, J., and R. Willis.2004. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
69.
Wynne, B.1992. Uncertainty and environmental learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environmental Change2 (2): 111-27.
70.
———. 1995. Public understanding of science. In The handbook of science and technology studies, ed. S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Petersen, and T. Pinch , 361-88. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
71.
———. 2003. Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism: response to Collins and Evans (2002). Social Studies of Science33 (3): 401-17.
72.
———. 2005. Risk as globalising `democratic' discourse: Framing subjects and citizens. In Science and citizens, ed. M. Leach, I. Scoones , and B. Wynne, 66-82. London : Zed Books.
