Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comment
. 2023:12:7701.
doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7701. Epub 2023 May 15.

How to Account for Asymmetries in Deliberative Dialogues Comment on "Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study"

Jaime Jiménez-Pernett  1   2   3
Affiliations
Comment

How to Account for Asymmetries in Deliberative Dialogues Comment on "Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study"

Jaime Jiménez-Pernett. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023.

Abstract

In health policy-making, various deliberative mechanisms can be used to engage the members of the public in exploring what might be a reasonable course of action. Scurr et al take power dynamics into consideration to analyse a deliberative dialogue involving stakeholders with diverse points of view. Given such asymmetries at play, the conclusions of deliberations could be biased. Scholars would benefit from guidance on designing and evaluating deliberative processes. This commentary aims to broadly reflect on the possible sources of power and information asymmetries in deliberative dialogues, and to bring the biographical resources approach to deal with such asymmetries.

Keywords: Deliberative Methods; Equity; Inequalities; Measurement; Power Imbalances; Public Engagement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Author declares that he has no competing interests.

Comment on

References

    1. Scurr T, Ganann R, Sibbald SL, Valaitis R, Kothari A. Evaluating public participation in a deliberative dialogue: a single case study. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(11):2638–2650. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.6588. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bohman J. Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1996.
    1. Beauvais E, Baechtiger A. Taking the goals of deliberation seriously: a differentiated view on equality and equity in deliberative designs and processes. J Public Delib. 2016;12(2):2. doi: 10.16997/jdd.254. - DOI
    1. Young IM. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.
    1. Harris CC, Becker DR, Nielsen EA, Mclaughlin WJ. Public deliberation about salmon restoration impacts: differences in the input of citizens in different community roles. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 2014;16(4):1450033. doi: 10.1142/s1464333214500331. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources