Empowering ordinary citizens with the capacity to deliberate is a core issue in science communication. Despite growing deliberative practices in developed nations, it is significantly less understood how public deliberation can happen among populations who live with limited educational resources and poor urban infrastructure in developing countries. This article studied a case of a well-designed deliberation method, Deliberative Poll, in Tamale, Ghana. I analyzed the stimulus information video and thousands of speech acts from deliberation transcripts to examine how expertise was used and what was deliberated in public dialogue. A broad range of expertise and interests were represented. Participants had thoughtful discussions on complex policy issues and their discussion results were considered by local policymakers. This article contributes to our understanding of how to effectively foster public deliberation among populations in the Global South and measure the nuances of expertise and public reasoning on science.
AbdulaiA-GHickeyS (2016) The politics of development under competitive clientelism: Insights from Ghana’s education sector. African Affairs115(458): 44–72.
2.
AhteensuuM (2012) Assumptions of the deficit model type of thinking: Ignorance, attitudes, and science communication in the debate on genetic engineering in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics25(3): 295–313.
3.
AkinHScheufeleDA (2017) Overview of the science of science communication. In: Jamieson KH, Kahan DM and Scheufele DA(eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 25–33.
4.
AndersonADelborneJKleinmanDL (2013) Information beyond the forum: Motivations, strategies, and impacts of citizen participants seeking information during a consensus conference. Public Understanding of Science22(8): 955–970.
5.
AndersonAKimJScheufeleDBrossardDXenosM (2013) What’s in a name? How we define nanotech shapes public reactions. Journal of Nanoparticle Research15(2): 1421.
6.
AwaNE (1989) Participation and indigenous knowledge in rural development. Knowledge10(4): 304–316.
7.
BächtigerA (2018) A preface to studying deliberation empirically. In: BächtigerADryzekJMansbridgeJWarrenM (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 657–662.
8.
BentleyCPeacockSAbelsonJBurgessMMDemers-PayetteOLongstaffH, et al. (2019) Addressing the affordability of cancer drugs: Using deliberative public engagement to inform health policy. Health Research Policy and Systems17(1): 17.
9.
BlokA (2007) Experts on public trial: On democratizing expertise through a Danish consensus conference. Public Understanding of Science16(2): 163–182.
10.
BoulianneSChenKKahaneD (2020) Mobilizing mini-publics: The causal impact of deliberation on civic engagement using panel data. Politics 40(4): 460–476.
11.
BrossardDLewensteinB (2009) A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science: Using practice to inform theory. In: KahlorLStoutP (eds) Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 25–53.
12.
ChirawurahDFishkinJSantuahNSiuABawahAKranjac-BerisavljevicG, et al. (2019) Deliberation for development: Ghana’s first Deliberative Poll. Journal of Public Deliberation15(1): 3.
13.
CookeBKothariU (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny?London: Zed Books.
14.
CortassaC (2016) In science communication, why does the idea of a public deficit always return? The eternal recurrence of the public deficit. Public Understanding of Science25(4): 447–459.
15.
DeneulinS (2006) The Capability Approach and the Praxis of Development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
DietzT (2013) Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America110(Supplement 3): 14081–14087.
17.
DonaghyM (2011) Do participatory governance institutions matter? Municipal councils and social housing programs in Brazil. Comparative Politics44(1): 83–102.
18.
DrezeJSenASenAK (1999) India: Economic Development and Social Opportunity, OUP Catalogue. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
19.
DryzekJSBächtigerAChambersSCohenJDruckmanJNFelicettiA, et al. (2019) The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science363(6432): 1144–1146.
20.
FanM-F (2015) Evaluating the 2008 consensus conference on genetically modified foods in Taiwan. Public Understanding of Science24(5): 533–546.
21.
FishkinJ (2018) Democracy When the People Are Thinking: Revitalizing Our Politics through Public Deliberation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
FuntowiczSORavetzJR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures25(7): 739–755.
23.
GibsonCWoolcockM (2008) Empowerment, deliberative development, and local-level politics in Indonesia: Participatory projects as a source of countervailing power. Studies in Comparative International Development43(2): 151–180.
24.
GutmannAThompsonD (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
HartPSNisbetE (2012) Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research39(6): 701–723.
26.
HayesAFKrippendorffK (2007) Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures1(1): 77–89.
27.
HellerPHarilalKNChaudhuriS (2007) Building local democracy: Evaluating the impact of decentralization in Kerala, India. World Development35(4): 626–648.
28.
HimmelroosS (2017) Discourse quality in deliberative citizen forums—A comparison of four deliberative mini-publics. Journal of Public Deliberation13(1): 3.
29.
HumphreysMMastersWSandbuM (2006) The role of leaders in democratic deliberations: Results from a field experiment in Sao Tome and Principe. World Politics58: 583–622.
30.
JacobsLCookLCarpiniD (2009) Talking Together: Public Deliberation and Political Participation in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31.
JamiesonKKahanDScheufeleD (2017) Conclusion—On the horizon: The changing science communication environment. In: JamiesonKKahanDScheufeleD (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 461–469.
32.
JasanoffSHurlbutBSahaK (2015) CRISPR democracy: Gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation. Issues in Science and Technology32(1): 37–49.
33.
LancasterCScottAKullenbergLCollierPSoludoCMarcosM, et al. (2003) Toward country-led development: A multi-partner evaluation of the comprehensive development framework. Synthesis report, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the World Bank, Washington, DC.
34.
LangbeinL (2005) Negotiated and conventional rulemaking at EPA: A comparative case analysis. In: Paper prepared for the National Research Council Panel on Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, January 1.
35.
MooreA (2018) Deliberative democracy and science. In: Andre Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford University Press, pp. 640–661. Oxford, England.
36.
MurphyWP (1990) Creating the appearance of consensus in Mende political discourse. American Anthropologist92(1): 24–41.
37.
MwalePN (2006) Societal deliberation on genetically modified maize in southern Africa: The debateness and publicness of the Zambian national consultation on genetically modified maize food aid in 2002. Public Understanding of Science15(1): 89–102.
38.
NisbetM (2018) Scientists in Civic Life: Facilitating Dialogue-Based Communication. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
39.
NisbetMMarkowitzE (2015) Public Engagement Research and Major Approaches. Washington, DC: AAAS Center for Public Engagement with Science and Technology.
40.
NyhanBReiflerJ (2015) Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine33(3): 459–464.
41.
OstromE (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42.
PallerJW (2016) Informal Practices of Accountability in Urban Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43.
PallerJW (2019a) Democracy in Ghana: Everyday Politics in Urban Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
PallerJW (2019b) Dignified public expression: A new logic of political accountability. Comparative Politics52(1): 85–116.
45.
PetersHP (2008) Scientists as public experts: Expectations and responsibilities. In: BucchiMTrenchB (eds) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London: Routledge, pp. 131–146.
46.
PosnerRA (2005) Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
RaoVSanyalP (2010) Dignity through discourse: Poverty and the culture of deliberation in Indian village democracies. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science629(1): 146–172.
48.
RavetzIR (1999) What is post-normal science. Futures31(7): 647–654.
49.
RhodesHSawyerK (2015) Public Engagement on Genetically Modified Organisms: When Science and Citizens Connect, Vol. 10. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
50.
RittelHWJWebberMM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences4(2): 155–169.
51.
RosenbergS (2007) Deliberation, Participation and Democracy: Can the People Govern?Palgrave Macmillan, London.
52.
RosenbergS (2014) Citizen competence and the psychology of deliberation. In: EstlubSMcLavertyP (eds) Deliberative Democracy: Issues and Cases. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 98–117.
53.
SappSGKorschingPFArnotCWilsonJJH (2013) Science communication and the rationality of public opinion formation. Science Communication35(6): 734–757.
54.
SchibeciRBarnsI (1998) Gene technology communication: Facilitating public deliberation of pST gene technology. Science Communication20(2): 204–226.
55.
SenA (1990) Development as capability expansion. In: GriffinKKnightJ (eds) The Community Development Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 41–58.
56.
SenA (1993) Capability and well-being. In: SenN (ed.) The Quality of Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 30–73.
57.
SenA (1999) Development as Freedom. New York: Alfred Knopf.
58.
SheelyR (2015) Mobilization, participatory planning institutions, and elite capture: Evidence from a field experiment in rural Kenya. World Development67: 251–266.
59.
SmithG (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60.
SteenbergenMBächtigerASpörndliMSteinerJ (2003) Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics1(1): 21–48.
61.
SteinerJ (2012) The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy: Empirical Research and Normative Implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62.
SteinerJBächtigerASpörndliMSteenbergenM (2004) Deliberative Politics in Action: Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63.
SturgisPAllumN (2004) Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science13(1): 55–74.
64.
The National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine (2017) Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine.
65.
WalkerG (2007) Public participation as participatory communication in environmental policy decision-making: From concepts to structured conversations. Environmental Communication1(1): 99–110.
66.
WalmsleyH (2010) Biobanking, public consultation, and the discursive logics of deliberation: Five lessons from British Columbia. Public Understanding of Science19(4): 452–468.
67.
WamplerB (2010) Participatory Budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, Cooperation, and Accountability. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
