Experts and evidence in public decision making

Jennifer Roberts, Ruth Lightbody

Research output: Working paperOther working paper

Abstract

Experts hold a prominent position in guiding and shaping policy making and often work closely with governments. The nature of expert input to decision making has recently become a topic of public debate. The particular saliency of debates about the role of experts can be set against what we already know about how people form opinions on complex topics – views can be shaped by many factors, including the perspectives and arguments put forward by others. In light of this, we have looked at how experts and evidence are used in deliberative public forums, with a focus on the citizens’ jury model, to draw out lessons for
practitioners and organisers of such ‘mini publics’ on how to best manage the contributions of experts. During a citizens’ jury, participants are supported to learn more about the topic at hand before they go on to deliberate the issue and agree collective recommendations. Citizens’ juries are one of several deliberative processes, which are a useful ‘tool’ in the toolbox of policy practitioners. Such processes have been used in a variety of ways to support decision
making processes. A key aspect of citizens’ juries is the provision of information to participants. Although this is done by a variety of means, the opportunity to hear from and question experts or ‘lay’ witnesses is usually a significant element. This raises a number of issues that organisers and advocates of citizens’ juries must reckon with, including issues around witness selection, the format of evidence provision, the evidence itself, and how the witnesses themselves are
supported. Ultimately, evidence must be put forward in a way that is informative to participants, and fair to the witnesses presenting the evidence. We reviewed ten deliberative processes, with an emphasis on citizens’ juries on topics
relating to energy and environment.
LanguageEnglish
Place of PublicationGlasgow
PublisherUniversity of Strathclyde
Pages1-12
Number of pages12
Publication statusPublished - 6 Feb 2017

Fingerprint

decision making
expert
citizen
witness
evidence
know how
policy making
public
energy

Keywords

  • policy brief
  • expertise
  • decision-making
  • deliberation
  • citizens' juries

Cite this

Roberts, J., & Lightbody, R. (2017). Experts and evidence in public decision making. (pp. 1-12). Glasgow: University of Strathclyde.
Roberts, Jennifer ; Lightbody, Ruth. / Experts and evidence in public decision making. Glasgow : University of Strathclyde, 2017. pp. 1-12
@techreport{7d4de289810e444ab7cd3b7c6a05ec83,
title = "Experts and evidence in public decision making",
abstract = "Experts hold a prominent position in guiding and shaping policy making and often work closely with governments. The nature of expert input to decision making has recently become a topic of public debate. The particular saliency of debates about the role of experts can be set against what we already know about how people form opinions on complex topics – views can be shaped by many factors, including the perspectives and arguments put forward by others. In light of this, we have looked at how experts and evidence are used in deliberative public forums, with a focus on the citizens’ jury model, to draw out lessons forpractitioners and organisers of such ‘mini publics’ on how to best manage the contributions of experts. During a citizens’ jury, participants are supported to learn more about the topic at hand before they go on to deliberate the issue and agree collective recommendations. Citizens’ juries are one of several deliberative processes, which are a useful ‘tool’ in the toolbox of policy practitioners. Such processes have been used in a variety of ways to support decisionmaking processes. A key aspect of citizens’ juries is the provision of information to participants. Although this is done by a variety of means, the opportunity to hear from and question experts or ‘lay’ witnesses is usually a significant element. This raises a number of issues that organisers and advocates of citizens’ juries must reckon with, including issues around witness selection, the format of evidence provision, the evidence itself, and how the witnesses themselves aresupported. Ultimately, evidence must be put forward in a way that is informative to participants, and fair to the witnesses presenting the evidence. We reviewed ten deliberative processes, with an emphasis on citizens’ juries on topicsrelating to energy and environment.",
keywords = "policy brief, expertise, decision-making, deliberation, citizens' juries",
author = "Jennifer Roberts and Ruth Lightbody",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
day = "6",
language = "English",
pages = "1--12",
publisher = "University of Strathclyde",
type = "WorkingPaper",
institution = "University of Strathclyde",

}

Roberts, J & Lightbody, R 2017 'Experts and evidence in public decision making' University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, pp. 1-12.

Experts and evidence in public decision making. / Roberts, Jennifer; Lightbody, Ruth.

Glasgow : University of Strathclyde, 2017. p. 1-12.

Research output: Working paperOther working paper

TY - UNPB

T1 - Experts and evidence in public decision making

AU - Roberts, Jennifer

AU - Lightbody, Ruth

PY - 2017/2/6

Y1 - 2017/2/6

N2 - Experts hold a prominent position in guiding and shaping policy making and often work closely with governments. The nature of expert input to decision making has recently become a topic of public debate. The particular saliency of debates about the role of experts can be set against what we already know about how people form opinions on complex topics – views can be shaped by many factors, including the perspectives and arguments put forward by others. In light of this, we have looked at how experts and evidence are used in deliberative public forums, with a focus on the citizens’ jury model, to draw out lessons forpractitioners and organisers of such ‘mini publics’ on how to best manage the contributions of experts. During a citizens’ jury, participants are supported to learn more about the topic at hand before they go on to deliberate the issue and agree collective recommendations. Citizens’ juries are one of several deliberative processes, which are a useful ‘tool’ in the toolbox of policy practitioners. Such processes have been used in a variety of ways to support decisionmaking processes. A key aspect of citizens’ juries is the provision of information to participants. Although this is done by a variety of means, the opportunity to hear from and question experts or ‘lay’ witnesses is usually a significant element. This raises a number of issues that organisers and advocates of citizens’ juries must reckon with, including issues around witness selection, the format of evidence provision, the evidence itself, and how the witnesses themselves aresupported. Ultimately, evidence must be put forward in a way that is informative to participants, and fair to the witnesses presenting the evidence. We reviewed ten deliberative processes, with an emphasis on citizens’ juries on topicsrelating to energy and environment.

AB - Experts hold a prominent position in guiding and shaping policy making and often work closely with governments. The nature of expert input to decision making has recently become a topic of public debate. The particular saliency of debates about the role of experts can be set against what we already know about how people form opinions on complex topics – views can be shaped by many factors, including the perspectives and arguments put forward by others. In light of this, we have looked at how experts and evidence are used in deliberative public forums, with a focus on the citizens’ jury model, to draw out lessons forpractitioners and organisers of such ‘mini publics’ on how to best manage the contributions of experts. During a citizens’ jury, participants are supported to learn more about the topic at hand before they go on to deliberate the issue and agree collective recommendations. Citizens’ juries are one of several deliberative processes, which are a useful ‘tool’ in the toolbox of policy practitioners. Such processes have been used in a variety of ways to support decisionmaking processes. A key aspect of citizens’ juries is the provision of information to participants. Although this is done by a variety of means, the opportunity to hear from and question experts or ‘lay’ witnesses is usually a significant element. This raises a number of issues that organisers and advocates of citizens’ juries must reckon with, including issues around witness selection, the format of evidence provision, the evidence itself, and how the witnesses themselves aresupported. Ultimately, evidence must be put forward in a way that is informative to participants, and fair to the witnesses presenting the evidence. We reviewed ten deliberative processes, with an emphasis on citizens’ juries on topicsrelating to energy and environment.

KW - policy brief

KW - expertise

KW - decision-making

KW - deliberation

KW - citizens' juries

UR - http://www.climatexchange.org.uk

M3 - Other working paper

SP - 1

EP - 12

BT - Experts and evidence in public decision making

PB - University of Strathclyde

CY - Glasgow

ER -

Roberts J, Lightbody R. Experts and evidence in public decision making. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde. 2017 Feb 6, p. 1-12.