The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation
Open accessAbstract
There is a growing call for greater public involvement in establishing science and technology policy, in line with democratic ideals. A variety of public participation procedures exist that aim to consult and involve the public, ranging from the public hearing to the consensus conference. Unfortunately, a general lack of empirical consideration of the quality of these methods arises from confusion as to the appropriate benchmarks for evaluation. Given that the quality of the output of any participation exercise is difficult to determine, the authors suggest the need to consider which aspects of the process are desirable and then to measure the presence or quality of these process aspects. To this end, a number of theoretical evaluation criteria that are essential for effective public participation are specified. These comprise two types: acceptance criteria, which concern features of a method that make it acceptable to the wider public, and process criteria, which concern features of the process that are liable to ensure that it takes place in an effective manner. Future research needs to develop instruments to measure these criteria more precisely and identify the contextual and environmental factors that will mediate the effectiveness of the different participation methods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1998) · Agriculture and Human Values · doi:10.1023/a:1007465730039 · Cited by 131
Self-citation
Cited by
Developing a framework for responsible innovation
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008 · Cited by 3,184
Stirling, A. (2008) · Science, Technology, & Human Values · doi:10.1177/0162243907311265 · Cited by 1,567
Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology
Delgado, A., Lein Kjølberg, K., & Wickson, F. (2011) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662510363054 · Cited by 284
Inclusive risk governance: concepts and application to environmental policy making
Renn, O., & Schweizer, P. (2009) · Environmental Policy and Governance · doi:10.1002/eet.507 · Cited by 265
From Transportation Equity to Transportation Justice: Within, Through, and Beyond the State
Karner, A., London, J., Rowangould, D., & Manaugh, K. (2020) · Journal of Planning Literature · doi:10.1177/0885412220927691 · Cited by 259
Metadata
- Authors
- Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J.
- Venue
- Science, Technology, & Human Values
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2000-01
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-29
- ISSN
- 0162-2439 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8251
- OpenAlex
- W2120214319
- Cited by
- 2,240
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 123.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/016224390002500101
- The paper
- Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500101
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.