The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms
Open accessAbstract
Imprecise definition of key terms in the “public participation” domain have hindered the conduct of good research and militated against the development and implementation of effective participation practices. In this article, we define key concepts in the domain: public communication, public consultation, and public participation. These concepts are differentiated according to the nature and flow of information between exercise sponsors and participants. According to such an information flow perspective, an exercise’s effectiveness may be ascertained by the efficiency with which full, relevant information is elicited from all appropriate sources, transferred to (and processed by) all appropriate recipients, and combined(when required) to give an aggregate/consensual response. Key variables that may theoretically affect effectiveness—and on which engagement mechanisms differ—are identified and used to develop a typology of mechanisms. The resultant typology reveals four communication, six consultation, and four participation mechanism classes. Limitations to the typology are discussed, and future research needs identified.
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
A Ladder Of Citizen Participation
Arnstein, S. R. (1969) · Journal of the American Institute of Planners · doi:10.1080/01944366908977225 · Cited by 17,064
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
Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework for academic program development
Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011) · Sustainability Science · doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6 · Cited by 2,995
Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice
Esmail, L., Moore, E., & Rein, A. (2015) · Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research · doi:10.2217/cer.14.79 · Cited by 502
Science communication as political communication
Scheufele, D. A. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1317516111 · Cited by 313
Boivin, A., Currie, K., Fervers, B., Gracia, J., James, M., Marshall, C., Sakala, C., Sanger, S., Strid, J., Thomas, V., et al. (2010) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/qshc.2009.034835 · Cited by 201
Metadata
- Authors
- Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J.
- Venue
- Science, Technology, & Human Values
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2005-04
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 251-290
- ISSN
- 0162-2439 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8251
- OpenAlex
- W2139571455
- Cited by
- 1,854
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 152.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0162243904271724
- The paper
- Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724
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.