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 language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 3-32 |
Number of pages | 30 |
Journal | Policy Sciences |
Volume | 53 |
Early online date | 14 Jan 2020 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Mar 2020 |
Keywords
- experts
- evidence
- deliberative democracy
- citizens' jury
- mini-populous
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- General Social Sciences
- Development
- Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
- Sociology and Political Science
- Public Administration