Public engagement is increasingly advocated and applied in the development and implementation of technological innovations. However, initiatives so far are rarely considered effective. There is a need for more methodological rigor and insight into conducive conditions. The authors developed an evaluative framework and assessed accordingly the effectiveness of a project of the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport in which the application of interactive policy making was piloted in medical biotechnology, among others, to increase the legitimacy and quality of the policy agenda. Relevant societal actors, including citizens, were actively involved in an open-exchange, action and reflection process, integrating relevant knowledge. Although the project was overall evaluated as effective, some difficulties were faced. These were mostly related to the novel roles public engagement requires of principal actors. The article concludes that more research is needed on the position of the executing team and on overcoming tensions existing between different governance modes.
Abelson, J., Forest, P.G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F.G. ( 2003). Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine, 57, 239-251.
2.
van Asselt, M.B.A., & Rijkens-Klomp, N. (2002). A look in the mirror: Reflection on participation in integrated assessment from a methodological perspective. Global Environmental Change, 12, 167-184.
3.
Caron-Flinterman, J.F., Broerse, J.E.W., Teerling, J., van Alst, M.L.Y., Klaasen, S., Swart, L.E., et al. (2006). Stakeholder participation in health research agenda setting: The case of asthma and COPD research in the Netherlands. Science and Public Policy, 33, 291-304.
4.
Chilvers, J. ( 2008). Deliberating competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33, 155-185.
5.
de Cock Buning, Tj., Broerse, J.E.W., & Bunders, J.F.G. (2008). Public perception of prenatal genetic testing: Arguments put forward by the public during an innovative participatory policy project in the Netherlands. Community Genetics, 11, 52-62.
6.
Driessen, P.P.J., Glasbergen, P., & Verdaas, C. ( 2001). Interactive policy-making: A model of management for public works. European Journal of Operational Research , 128, 322-337.
7.
Edelenbos, J. ( 2000). Process in shape (PhD thesis in Dutch). Utrecht, the Netherlands: Lemma.
8.
Feenberg, A. ( 1999). Questioning technology. London : Routledge.
9.
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, 451-482.
10.
Hagendijk, R., Healey, P., Horst, M., & Irwin, A. ( 2005). STAGE: Science, technology and governance in Europe: Challenges of public engagement (HPSE-CT2001-50003). European Commission. Retrieved September 10, 2009, from http://www.stage-research.net/STAGE/documents/STAGE_Final_Report_final.pdf
11.
Hagendijk, R., & Irwin, A. ( 2006). Public deliberation and governance, engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva, 44, 167-184.
12.
Halvorsen, K.E. ( 2003). Assessing the effects of public participation . Public Administration Review, 63, 535-543.
13.
Irvin, R.A., & Stansbury, J. ( 2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64, 55-65.
14.
Irwin, A. ( 2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science , 10(1), 1-18.
15.
Irwin, A. ( 2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the "new" scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36, 299-320.
16.
Jasanoff, S. ( 2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41, 223-244.
17.
Klijn, E.H., & Koppenjan, J.F.M. (2000). Politicians and interactive decision making: Institutional spoilsports or playmakers. Public Administration, 78, 365-387.
18.
Laird, F.N. ( 1993). Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 18, 341-361.
19.
Marris, C., Wynne, B., Simmons, P., & Weldon, S. ( 2002). Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe (PABE) (Final Report). Lancaster, UK: PABE.
20.
Mayer, I., Edelenbos, J., & Monnikhof, R. ( 2005). Interactive policy development: Undermining or sustaining democracy? Public Administration, 83, 179-199.
21.
Meuleman, L. ( 2003). The Pegasus principle: Reinventing a credible public sector. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Lemma.
22.
Mitcham, C. ( 1999). Why the public should participate in technical decision making. In R. von Schomberg (Ed.), Democratising technology: Theory and practice of a deliberative technology policy. Hengelo, the Netherlands: International Centre for Human and Public Affairs.
23.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. ( 2001). Rethinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
24.
Parliament of the Netherlands. (2003, December 8). Minutes 27 428, General discussion on Policy paper Biotechnology (in Dutch). Amsterdam: Author.
25.
Rip, A., Misa, T.J., & Schot, J. ( 1995). Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. London: Pinter.
26.
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L.J. ( 2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation . Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25, 3-29.
27.
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L.J. ( 2004). Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30, 251-290.
28.
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L.J. ( 2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29, 512-556.
Slocom, N. ( 2003). Participatory methods toolkit: A practitioner’s manual. Brussels, Belgium: King Baudouin Foundation.
31.
Steneker, I., Vos, C., Kikken, D., Daemen, I., van den Wijngaard, J., Hartgerink, J.W., et al. (2002). Biotechnology as open policy process (BOB): Report of the exploratory phase (in Dutch). The Hague, the Netherlands: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport.
32.
de Vriend, H.C. ( 2004). Citizens and trends in biotechnology: Research on values and objectives (in Dutch). Amsterdam: Consumer and Biotechnology Foundation.
33.
VWS. (2004). Medical biotechnology policy plan 2004-2007 (in Dutch). The Hague, the Netherlands: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports.
34.
Webler, T., & Tuler, S. ( 2000). Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Theoretical reflections from a case study. Administration & Society , 32, 566-595.
35.
Weldon, S. ( 2004). Public engagement in genetics: A review of current practice in the UK. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University.
36.
van Woerkum, C. ( 2000). Interactive policy making: The principles. Journal of Agricultural Education & Extension, 6, 199-212.
37.
Wynne, B. ( 2002). Risk and environment as legitimatory discourse of technology: Reflexivity inside out? Current Sociology, 50, 459-477.
