Deliberative Processes in Practice

  • Cobi SmithEmail author
  • Gene Rowe
Part of the The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology book series (ELTE, volume 16)


This chapter discusses the use of deliberative processes in policy making about bioethics, drawing more broadly on deliberative democracy theory and health policy. We discuss who runs deliberative processes and why, but are particularly concerned with what conditions are needed for deliberative processes to be successful. We note uncertainties and tensions that may be inevitable in meeting these conditions. Fairness and accountability emerge as themes in which these conditions can be grouped. For accountability in particular, understanding the policy context and motives for deliberative processes are essential to their evaluation.


Deliberation Bioethics Public Policy Participation Evaluation 



This research was conducted as part of Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant “Big Picture Bioethics: Policy-making and Liberal Democracy” (DP0556068).


  1. Abelson, J. 2003. Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting. Health Policy 66(1): 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abelson, J., M. Giacomini, P. Lehoux, and F.-P. Gauvin. 2007. Bringing ‘the public’ into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice. Health Policy 82(1): 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anand, P. 2002. Public health: Decision-making when science is ambiguous. Science 295(5561): 1839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrow, K.J. 1977. Current developments in the theory of social choice. Social Research 44(4): 607–622.Google Scholar
  5. Bernert, C. 1983. The career of causal analysis in American sociology. The British Journal of Sociology 34(2): 230–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bishop, P., and G. Davis. 2002. Mapping public participation in policy choices. Australian Journal of Public Administration 61(1): 14–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowie, C., A. Richardson, and W. Sykes. 1995. Consulting the public about health service priorities. British Medical Journal 311(7013): 1155–1158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruni, R.A., A. Laupacis, and D. Martin. 2008. Public engagement in setting priorities in health care. Canadian Medical Association Journal 179(1): 15–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chilvers, J. 2008. Deliberating competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice. Science Technology Human Values 33(2): 155–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins, R. 1989. Sociology: Proscience or antiscience? American Sociological Review 54(1): 124–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Contandriopoulos, D. 2004. A sociological perspective on public participation in health care. Social Science and Medicine 58(2): 321–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daniels, N. 2000. Accountability for reasonableness. British Medical Journal 321(7272): 1300–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daniels, N., and J. Sabin. 1997. Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy and Public Affairs 26(4): 303–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Delli Carpini, M., F. Cook, and L. Jacobs. 2004. Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science 7(1): 315–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dixon, J., and H.G. Welch. 1991. Priority setting: Lessons from Oregon. The Lancet 337(8746): 891–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dolan, P., R. Cookson, and B. Ferguson. 1999. Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public’s views of priority setting in health care: focus group study. British Medical Journal 318(7188): 916–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dyer, C. 2007. NICE faces legal challenge over Alzheimer’s drug. British Medical Journal 334(7595): 654–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiorino, D. 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science Technology Human Values 15(2): 226–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibson, J., D. Martin, and P. Singer. 2005. Priority setting in hospitals: Fairness, inclusiveness, and the problem of institutional power differences. Social Science & Medicine 61(11): 2355–2362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goldthorpe, J.H. 2001. Causation, statistics, and sociology. European Sociological Review 17(1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knight, J., and J. Johnson. 1997. What sort of political equality does deliberative democracy require? In Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics, ed. J. Bohman and W. Rehg, 279–320, Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Laird, F. 1993. Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Science Technology Human Values 18(3): 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lenaghan, J. 1999. Involving the public in rationing decisions. The experience of citizens juries. Health Policy 49(1–2): 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lenaghan, J., B. New, and E. Mitchell. 1996. Setting priorities: Is there a role for citizens’ juries? British Medical Journal 312(7046): 1591–1593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Litva, A. 2002. “The public is too subjective”: Public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Social Science and Medicine 54(12): 1825–1837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin, D., J. Abelson, and P. Singer. 2002. Participation in health care priority-setting through the eyes of the participants. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 7(4): 222–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Milewa, T. 2006. Health technology adoption and the politics of governance in the UK. Social Science and Medicine 63(12): 3102–3112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mitton, C., N. Smith, S. Peacock, B. Evoy, and J. Abelson. 2009. Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review. Health Policy 91(3): 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morrell, M. 2005. Deliberation, democratic decision-making and internal political efficacy. Political Behavior 27(1): 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nagel, J. 1992. Combining deliberation and fair representation in community health decisions. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 140(5): 1965–1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Newman, J., M. Barnes, H. Sullivan, and A. Knops. 2004. Public participation and collaborative governance. Journal of Social Policy 33(02): 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Doherty, K., and M. Burgess. 2009. Engaging the public on biobanks: Outcomes of the BC biobank deliberation. Public Health Genomics 12(4): 203–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Donnell, M., and V. Entwistle. 2004. Consumer involvement in decisions about what health-related research is funded. Health Policy 70(3): 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peacock, S., C. Mitton, A. Bate, B. McCoy, and C. Donaldson. 2009. Overcoming barriers to priority setting using interdisciplinary methods. Health Policy 92(2–3): 124–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pötter, U., and H.-P. Blossfeld. 2001. Causal inference from series of events. European Sociological Review 17(1): 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Powell, M., and M. Colin. 2009. Participatory paradoxes: Facilitating citizen engagement in science and technology from the top-down? Bulletin of Science Technology Society 29(4): 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Quennell, P. 2003. Getting a word in edgeways? Patient group participation in the appraisal process of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Clinical Governance: An International Journal 8(1): 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rayner, S. 2003. Democracy in the age of assessment: reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making. Science and Public Policy 30(3): 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rawls, J. 1999. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Renn, O., T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann. 1995. The pursuit of fair and competent citizen participation. In Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse, ed. O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, 339–367, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Rowe, G., and L. Frewer. 2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science Technology Human Values 25(1): 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rowe, G., and L. Frewer. 2004. Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science Technology Human Values 29(4): 512–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rowe, G., and L. Frewer. 2005. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science Technology Human Values 30(2): 251–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sabik, L., and R. Lie. 2008. Priority setting in health care: Lessons from the experiences of eight countries. International Journal for Equity in Health 7(1): 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Santos, S., and C. Chess. 2003. Evaluating citizen advisory boards: The importance of theory and participant-based criteria and practical implications. Risk Analysis 23(2): 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sellars, C., and A. Easey. 2008. First successful legal challenge to NICE guidance. Journal of Intellectual Property Law Practice 3(11): 692–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stewart, D., P. Shamdasani, and D. Rook. 2007. Focus groups: Theory and practice (Applied social research methods). London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tenbensel, T. 2002. Interpreting public input into priority-setting: the role of mediating institutions. Health Policy 62(2): 173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Webler, T. 1995. “Right” discourse in citizen participation: an evaluative yardstick. In Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse, ed. O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, 35–86. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  50. Young, I. 1990. Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of ScienceAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.Gene Rowe EvaluationsNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations