Introduction: Recent Research in Public Participation: A Focus on Learning
Introduction: Recent Research in Public Participation: A Focus on Learning
复制标题
简介：公众参与的最新研究：关注学习
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Tuler
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Webler;S. Tuler
公众参与和政策分析领域的大量学术研究越来越关注审议和对话的重要性。十多年前，Frank Fischer 和 John Forester（1993）将此称为政策分析中的“论证性转向”。类似的“协商转向”可以在公众参与（OECD 2005，Roberts 2004）、风险分析（国家研究委员会 1996）、政治学（Ackerman 和 Fishkin 2004，Druckman 和 Nelson 2003）、政策科学（Fischer 2003）、环境决策（国家研究委员会 2000，Drew 等人 2003）以及公共卫生（Abelson 等，2003）。一份被广泛引用的国家研究委员会报告强调了深思熟虑在有关风险和危害管理的复杂政策决策中的作用（国家研究委员会，1996）。这份报告是 2001 年《人类生态学评论》特刊的主题。如今，随处可见迹象表明，审议已被接受，但很少有批评的声音。因此，注意到今年夏天在麻省理工学院主办的关于协商民主3的高级别会议、《美国政治科学评论》中总结今年协商研究数量的年度评论文章、一本新的协商民主手册（Levine and Gastil 2005）、评估实践中的协商政策制定的大量学术研究、联邦和州机构内的政策指导（DOE 2003、EPA）也就不足为奇了。 2003，国家公园管理局 2003），以及大量有关如何正确“进行审议”的说明（Forester 1999）。综上所述，商议热点。你要么做，要么不做。但对话的目的是什么？为什么这么多人认为协商是一个非常棒的政策工具？通常给出的原因是对话可以促进找到更好的解决方案并减少冲突（例如，未来的诉讼）。这些目标实际实现的程度引起了激烈的争论。似乎不太容易争论的是，参与者（包括那些计划和实施流程的人，例如联邦和州机构工作人员）在对当前问题有实质性了解并且能够作为发言者和听众有效参与对话时会做得更好。接下来的文章探讨了与公众参与环境管理和学习相关的核心问题。对学习的担忧有多种表现形式。首先，参与者很少会进入一个完全理解相关问题和对话技巧的过程（尽管有些人可能这么认为！）。相反，这些是通过参与来学习和完善的。存在的问题是个人如何学习，作为理解实质性问题和理解不同参与者提出的替代方案的努力的一部分。基于个人的学习的一个相关方面是人们如何向他人表达自己的想法——他们如何说话，如何找到和使用他们的“声音”。沃克、塞内卡和丹尼尔斯以及佩茨的文章谈到了这些问题。其次，流程的组织者经常通过实际执行工作来了解什么有效、什么无效。存在的问题是，组织如何学会更好地进行公众参与，通过在过程中适应不断变化的条件和需求，以及在过程完成（做出决策）后，以便下次可以做得更好。过程中和过程后的评估可以让从业者更好地理解和构建促进理解和尊重、开放和深思熟虑的对话的努力。 Chess 和 Johnson、Walker、Senecah 和 Daniels、Petts、Hartley 和 Robertson 的文章都谈到了这些问题。最后，我们这些研究公众参与和协作决策并提供实践建议的人通过研究具体案例中发生的情况来学习。换句话说，我们通过实践和批判性反思我们正在做的事情来学习。这是 Halvorsen 文章的重点。简介：公众参与的最新研究：关注学习
A great deal of scholarship in the field of public participation and policy analysis has come increasingly to focus on the importance of deliberation and dialogue. Over a decade ago, Frank Fischer and John Forester (1993) labeled this the “argumentative turn” in policy analysis. A similar “deliberative turn” can be identified in the fields of public participation (OECD 2005, Roberts 2004), risk analysis (National Research Council 1996), political science (Ackerman and Fishkin 2004, Druckman and Nelson 2003), policy sciences (Fischer 2003), environmental decision-making (National Research Council 2000, Drew et al. 2003), and public health (Abelson et al. 2003). A widely cited National Research Council report highlighted the role of deliberation in complicated policy decisions about risks and hazard management (National Research Council 1996). This report was the topic of a Human Ecology Review special issue in 2001. Everywhere one looks these days there are signs that deliberation has been embraced with rarely a critical voice. Thus it is not surprising to notice a high-level conference on Deliberative Democracy3 sponsored at MIT this summer, yearly review articles in American Political Science Review summarizing the volumes of this annum’s research into deliberation, a new handbook on Deliberative Democracy (Levine and Gastil 2005), a plethora of academic studies evaluating deliberative policy making in practice, policy guidance within federal and state agencies (DOE 2003, EPA 2003, National Park Service 2003), and scores of instructions about how to “do deliberation” right (Forester 1999). In summary, deliberation is hot. You’re either doin’ it or you’re not. But what is the purpose of dialogue? Why do so many think deliberation is such a fantastic policy tool? Often the reasons given are that dialogue can facilitate finding better solutions and reducing conflict (e.g., future litigation). The extent to which these are actually achieved is hotly debated. What seems less open to debate is that participants (including those who plan and implement processes, such as federal and state agency staff) do better when they have substantive knowledge about the issues at hand and are able to effectively participate in a dialogue as speakers and listeners. The articles that follow grapple with central questions related to public participation in environmental management and learning. A concern with learning comes across in many guises. First, participants will rarely come to a process with full understandings of relevant issues and skills of dialogue (although some might think so!). Rather, these are learned and refined through participation. There is a question of how individuals learn as part of an effort to understand the substantive issues and to understand alternative options proposed by various participants. A related aspect of individual-based learning is how people present their own ideas to others — how they speak, how they find and use their “voice.” The articles by Walker, Senecah, and Daniels and by Petts speak to these issues. Second, the organizers of a process often learn about what works and what doesn’t by actually carrying out an effort. There is the question of how organizations learn to do public participation better, by adapting during a process to changing conditions and needs and after a process is completed (decision made) so that a better job can be done next time. Evaluation both during and after a process can allow practitioners to better understand and structure efforts that promote understandings and respectful, open, and thoughtful dialogue. The articles by Chess and Johnson, by Walker, Senecah, and Daniels, by Petts, and by Hartley and Robertson speak to these issues. Finally, those of us who study public participation and collaborative decision-making — and offer suggestions about practice — learn through study of what happens in specific cases. In other words, we learn by doing and critically reflecting on what we are doing. This is the focus of Halvorsen’s article. Introduction: Recent Research in Public Participation: A Focus on Learning