PANORAMA GENERAL DEL DELITO DEL SECUESTRO EN LAS NOTAS PERIODÍSTICAS

A number of frameworks and sets of principles exist for evaluating public participation Evaluative criteria for these activities have been developed by different means including: using theoretical and normative perspectives; empirically deriving criteria from participants and practitioners; or based on researcher opinion (Burgess & Chilvers 2006). Criteria derived from participants are likely to vary with context (Santos & Chess, 2003) and so those criteria are not dealt with explicitly here, although the frameworks of Rowe and colleagues are based on an amalgamation of criteria commonly appearing in the literature. It should also be noted that evaluation guidelines exist (generally produced by government-funded agencies) that summarize available criteria and give practical guidance and principles for conducting evaluations (e.g. Forss, 2005; Research Councils UK, 2011; Sciencewise, 2013). What follows is a discussion of existing frameworks and principles that propose generalisable criteria for the evaluation of PES.

The evaluation criteria for public participation and PES presented in Table 3 have four recurring themes. The first of these relates to the nature of the communication processes that form the basis of engagement. All of the frameworks in Table 3, perhaps with the exception

28

of Beierle’s (1998) outcomes-based approach, incorporate criteria related to the nature of dialogue, analysis or deliberation. One feature of communication proposed for evaluation is how effectively technical and often complex information is communicated to non-expert publics (Chilvers, 2008). The intent here is beyond a purely pedagogic or deficit view of science communication but rather a recognition that in order for non-expert participants to engage effectively—and so achieve a democratic ideal of “equal contribution” as per Schroeter et al. (2016)—they need to be able to make sense of the scientific claims put forward by scientists. Valuing the ability of participants to make, challenge and defend claims whilst engaging with science can be traced back to the ideal speech acts of Habermas (1984). Competence in discourse is viewed as necessary in order to construct “the most valid understandings and agreements possible given what is reasonably knowable at the time” (Webler, 1995, p. 58).

There is also a strong democratic theme to the evaluation criteria in Table 3 reflecting the rise of public participation in relation to public backlash and mistrust of science. One aspect of this is social empowerment through better access to experts and expert knowledge (Chilvers, 2008; Laird, 1993). Giving the general public better access to salient knowledge is seen as part of empowering them to participate in deliberative processes. Beyond access to expert knowledge is consequent influence over public decisions or sharing of power by allowing for real consequences and unpredictable outcomes from PES (Powell & Colin, 2008). Influence can be evaluated by measuring the impact of PES on decision making— were the outputs of PES used in some way by decision-makers (e.g. Beierle, 1998; Sciencewise)? Influence may also be evaluated as part of the engagement process in terms of potential rather than actual influence. For example, indicators of potential influence include mechanisms for the views of PES participants to be taken into account in decision-making or direct involvement of decision-makers in the process (Commonwealth of Australia, 2013). Another important aspect of influence by non-expert participants is in issue-framing (Biegelbauer & Hansen, 2011) which is facilitated by early involvement of non-experts in technology developments (Table 3). Also known as “upstream” engagement the participation of non-expert publics in framing issues is thought to create more scope for dialogue before “political, economic and organisational commitments may already be in place, narrowing the space for meaningful debate” (Wilsdon & Willis, 2004, p. 18).

29

Table 3: Summary of existing evaluation frameworks for public participation showing the source, basis and context of evaluation criteria.

Source Context of framework/ principles/ guidelines Metacriteria/ categories Laird (1993) US theoretical/normative Public participation in (science & technology) policy making

Democratic process - pluralism

Democratic process - direct participation Webler (1995) US

theoretical/normative

Public participation Fairness (ethical normative) Competence (functional analytical) Beierle (1998) US

researcher/substantive

Public participation in environmental decision- making using social goals

Educating and informing the public Incorporating public values into decisions Improving quality of decisions

Increasing trust in institutions Reducing conflict Achieving cost-effectiveness Rowe et al., (2008) UK researcher/normative Public participation in policy-making Acceptance criteria

Representativeness, Independence, Early involvement, Influence, Transparency

Process criteria

Resource accessibility, Task definition, Learning, Quality of deliberation, How information is collated, Cost-effectiveness

Other

Aims of event organizers Criteria derived from participants Burgess & Chilvers

(2006) UK researcher/opinion

Participatory technology assessments

Context and decision situation Engagement process

Outputs

Outcomes (e.g.learning, reflexivity) Chilvers (2008) UK

practitioner/opinion

Participatory appraisal (of science and technology)

The analytic-deliberative process Scientific analysis

Access to information & specialist expertise Deliberation

Sciencewise UK government guidelines

The effectiveness of public dialogue

Meeting project objectives Standards of good practice Participant satisfaction Impact Cost-benefit Schroeter et al. (2016) EUR Theoretical/ normative Public participation in policy-making Inclusiveness

Platform for communication & negotiation Equal contribution

Information exchange and learning

Exchange of knowledge, Common base of information, Transparency, Common understanding of the process

Influence on political decisions

Effectiveness/Efficiency

30

Another important component of democratically-based evaluation criteria in PES is the representativeness of participants. Early frameworks with a normative basis in deliberative democracy (Table 3) evaluate the extent to which a broad range of citizens from different backgrounds or groups are empowered or given a voice (Laird, 1993; Webler, 1995). Linked to these democratic ideals is an ethical component to participation that recognises engagement processes should avoid entrenching existing power inequalities in society (Rowe & Frewer, 2000). There is also a somewhat more implicit epistemic value in having broad or representative participation. Analysis of pubic engagement exercises in policy settings has revealed participation of ‘non-experts’ with varied experience, knowledge and value sets has a number of potential benefits including increasing the rationality or robustness of decisions involving experts by testing their framing of issues (Bogner, 2012). Likewise, different perspectives and understandings can allow for exploration of the implications of decisions (Russell, 2013). Lay input may be particularly relevant where “the issue is complex, characterised by high levels of uncertainty, indeterminacy and strongly divergent interpretations of facts and values” (Burgess & Chilvers, 2006, p. 718). These different values associated with representative engagement are important when considering decision- maker publics given representativeness of knowledge, values or experience may be more pertinent to their engagement than the democratic ideal of representation.

A final evaluative theme evident in Table 3 relates to the linked ideas of legitimacy and acceptance of public participation exercises and their outputs. Indicators such as “participant satisfaction” in the Sciencewise guidelines can be taken at face value or be viewed as a necessary pre-cursor to judgments about legitimacy and acceptance of the engagement exercise by participants and external stakeholders. A legitimate participation process in the democratic ideal, is one that genuinely empowers people to participate equally (Webler, 1995). There is an assumption here that acceptance will come from a legitimate process even if the public or sponsors don’t like the decisions or outputs. While it is understandable that sponsors may seek acceptance of processes they have invested in, it may be more appropriate to value fairness, transparency and other ethical principles because they are hallmarks of legitimate engagement processes.

Discussion of process has dominated the scholarly discourse in PES evaluation, but there is evidence that both participants and sponsors value outcomes (Rosener, 1981; Rowe & Frewer, 2004). Some evaluation guidelines developed for government for example include impacts for science communication (e.g. PLACES, 2011; Sciencewise). Broadly, participants

31

may value learning but they also want their inputs to influence public decisions, while sponsors may want to see value for their investment. As mentioned in Chapter 1, measurement of outcomes may be problematic because of issues around attribution (was the engagement process the cause of the outcome?) and timeliness (outcomes may take an extended time to manifest). However, evidence is lacking that processes can be validly evaluated as a surrogate for outcomes (Beierle, 1998; Chess & Purcell, 1999). I made the conceptual distinction between outcome and impact in Chapter 1. I am viewing outcomes as changes manifest in participants or individuals that the design and implementation of an engagement process may directly influence. In contrast, impacts are changes manifest at a social, institutional and physical level subject to many complex social, political and environmental forces unrelated to engagement itself. Decisions themselves are not a focus in PES although some regard the influence of PES on policy/decision-making an impact (Russell, 2013; Sciencewise).