Experts and evidence in deliberation: scrutinising the role of witnesses and evidence in mini-publics, a case study

Jennifer J. Roberts*, Ruth Lightbody, Ragne Lowe, Stephen Elstub

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Experts hold a prominent position in guiding and shaping policy-making; however, the nature of expert input to decision-making is a topic of public debate. A key aspect of deliberative processes such as citizens’ juries is the provision of information to participants, usually from expert witnesses. However, there is currently little guidance on some of the challenges that organisers and advocates of citizens’ juries must consider regarding expert involvement, including the role of the witness, issues around witness identification and selection, the format of evidence provision, the evidence itself, and how these factors affect the experience of the participants and the witnesses. Here, we explore these issues through detailed case study of three citizens’ juries on onshore wind farm development in Scotland, including interviews with the witnesses involved. This is complemented by examining a cohort of mini-publics held on energy and the environment topics, and, where possible, discussion with the program organisers. We identify a series of issues and sensitivities that can compromise the effectiveness and fairness of the evidence-giving in mini-publics, for the participants, the witnesses and the organisers. We recommend approaches and areas for future work to address these challenges. This is the first time that the ways of involving witnesses in such processes have been so comprehensively examined, and is timely given the increasing interest in democratic innovations such as mini-publics and the current discourse concerning experts.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages30
JournalPolicy Sciences
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 14 Jan 2020

Fingerprint

deliberation
witness
expert
evidence
citizen
fairness
compromise
farm
innovation
energy
decision making
discourse
interview
experience

Keywords

  • experts
  • evidence
  • deliberative democracy
  • citizens' jury
  • mini-populous

Cite this

@article{5386a192219f4544ba2fbbc6b21a043e,
title = "Experts and evidence in deliberation: scrutinising the role of witnesses and evidence in mini-publics, a case study",
abstract = "Experts hold a prominent position in guiding and shaping policy-making; however, the nature of expert input to decision-making is a topic of public debate. A key aspect of deliberative processes such as citizens’ juries is the provision of information to participants, usually from expert witnesses. However, there is currently little guidance on some of the challenges that organisers and advocates of citizens’ juries must consider regarding expert involvement, including the role of the witness, issues around witness identification and selection, the format of evidence provision, the evidence itself, and how these factors affect the experience of the participants and the witnesses. Here, we explore these issues through detailed case study of three citizens’ juries on onshore wind farm development in Scotland, including interviews with the witnesses involved. This is complemented by examining a cohort of mini-publics held on energy and the environment topics, and, where possible, discussion with the program organisers. We identify a series of issues and sensitivities that can compromise the effectiveness and fairness of the evidence-giving in mini-publics, for the participants, the witnesses and the organisers. We recommend approaches and areas for future work to address these challenges. This is the first time that the ways of involving witnesses in such processes have been so comprehensively examined, and is timely given the increasing interest in democratic innovations such as mini-publics and the current discourse concerning experts.",
keywords = "experts, evidence, deliberative democracy, citizens' jury, mini-populous",
author = "Roberts, {Jennifer J.} and Ruth Lightbody and Ragne Lowe and Stephen Elstub",
note = "Acceptance in SAN OA article",
year = "2020",
month = "1",
day = "14",
doi = "10.1007/s11077-019-09367-x",
language = "English",

}

Experts and evidence in deliberation: scrutinising the role of witnesses and evidence in mini-publics, a case study. / Roberts, Jennifer J.; Lightbody, Ruth; Lowe, Ragne ; Elstub, Stephen.

In: Policy Sciences, 14.01.2020.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Experts and evidence in deliberation: scrutinising the role of witnesses and evidence in mini-publics, a case study

AU - Roberts, Jennifer J.

AU - Lightbody, Ruth

AU - Lowe, Ragne

AU - Elstub, Stephen

N1 - Acceptance in SAN OA article

PY - 2020/1/14

Y1 - 2020/1/14

N2 - Experts hold a prominent position in guiding and shaping policy-making; however, the nature of expert input to decision-making is a topic of public debate. A key aspect of deliberative processes such as citizens’ juries is the provision of information to participants, usually from expert witnesses. However, there is currently little guidance on some of the challenges that organisers and advocates of citizens’ juries must consider regarding expert involvement, including the role of the witness, issues around witness identification and selection, the format of evidence provision, the evidence itself, and how these factors affect the experience of the participants and the witnesses. Here, we explore these issues through detailed case study of three citizens’ juries on onshore wind farm development in Scotland, including interviews with the witnesses involved. This is complemented by examining a cohort of mini-publics held on energy and the environment topics, and, where possible, discussion with the program organisers. We identify a series of issues and sensitivities that can compromise the effectiveness and fairness of the evidence-giving in mini-publics, for the participants, the witnesses and the organisers. We recommend approaches and areas for future work to address these challenges. This is the first time that the ways of involving witnesses in such processes have been so comprehensively examined, and is timely given the increasing interest in democratic innovations such as mini-publics and the current discourse concerning experts.

AB - Experts hold a prominent position in guiding and shaping policy-making; however, the nature of expert input to decision-making is a topic of public debate. A key aspect of deliberative processes such as citizens’ juries is the provision of information to participants, usually from expert witnesses. However, there is currently little guidance on some of the challenges that organisers and advocates of citizens’ juries must consider regarding expert involvement, including the role of the witness, issues around witness identification and selection, the format of evidence provision, the evidence itself, and how these factors affect the experience of the participants and the witnesses. Here, we explore these issues through detailed case study of three citizens’ juries on onshore wind farm development in Scotland, including interviews with the witnesses involved. This is complemented by examining a cohort of mini-publics held on energy and the environment topics, and, where possible, discussion with the program organisers. We identify a series of issues and sensitivities that can compromise the effectiveness and fairness of the evidence-giving in mini-publics, for the participants, the witnesses and the organisers. We recommend approaches and areas for future work to address these challenges. This is the first time that the ways of involving witnesses in such processes have been so comprehensively examined, and is timely given the increasing interest in democratic innovations such as mini-publics and the current discourse concerning experts.

KW - experts

KW - evidence

KW - deliberative democracy

KW - citizens' jury

KW - mini-populous

UR - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11077-019-09367-x

U2 - 10.1007/s11077-019-09367-x

DO - 10.1007/s11077-019-09367-x

M3 - Article

ER -