Public Engagement in Prioritizing Research Proposals

Australia has reflected an international shift toward public participation in governance and science. Researchers have critiqued this shift as insufficient. Meanwhile, studies of how research funds are allocated also found room for improvement. This experiment tested a way to add value to the effort...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Cobi Smith
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2014-02-01
Series:SAGE Open
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014523791
id doaj-891b47723a8a48bb9f14bf739b8752ee
record_format Article
spelling doaj-891b47723a8a48bb9f14bf739b8752ee2020-11-25T02:54:29ZengSAGE PublishingSAGE Open2158-24402014-02-01410.1177/215824401452379110.1177_2158244014523791Public Engagement in Prioritizing Research ProposalsCobi Smith0Australian National University, Canberra, AustraliaAustralia has reflected an international shift toward public participation in governance and science. Researchers have critiqued this shift as insufficient. Meanwhile, studies of how research funds are allocated also found room for improvement. This experiment tested a way to add value to the effort researchers put into research proposals by using them for deliberative public engagement. Three Australian events tested a model of deliberative participation in decision-making about science funding. These events were shorter than most deliberative processes, based on a model tested in the United Kingdom. Although recruitment was aimed at broad representation, participants had more formal education than Australia’s average. Voting decisions were most influenced by potential benefits to society of the planned research, as well as participants’ understanding of plans presented. Some reported that their decisions were influenced by whether benefits would happen locally. Results suggested that participants’ voting decisions were more influenced by the research plans than who presented them. However, unconscious biases cannot be ruled out as factors in decision-making. Participants reported they would be keen to participate in such a process again; however, this enthusiasm was linked to a meal incentive. The impact of brevity on deliberative decision-making is discussed, along with potential modifications for future experiments.https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014523791
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Cobi Smith
spellingShingle Cobi Smith
Public Engagement in Prioritizing Research Proposals
SAGE Open
author_facet Cobi Smith
author_sort Cobi Smith
title Public Engagement in Prioritizing Research Proposals
title_short Public Engagement in Prioritizing Research Proposals
title_full Public Engagement in Prioritizing Research Proposals
title_fullStr Public Engagement in Prioritizing Research Proposals
title_full_unstemmed Public Engagement in Prioritizing Research Proposals
title_sort public engagement in prioritizing research proposals
publisher SAGE Publishing
series SAGE Open
issn 2158-2440
publishDate 2014-02-01
description Australia has reflected an international shift toward public participation in governance and science. Researchers have critiqued this shift as insufficient. Meanwhile, studies of how research funds are allocated also found room for improvement. This experiment tested a way to add value to the effort researchers put into research proposals by using them for deliberative public engagement. Three Australian events tested a model of deliberative participation in decision-making about science funding. These events were shorter than most deliberative processes, based on a model tested in the United Kingdom. Although recruitment was aimed at broad representation, participants had more formal education than Australia’s average. Voting decisions were most influenced by potential benefits to society of the planned research, as well as participants’ understanding of plans presented. Some reported that their decisions were influenced by whether benefits would happen locally. Results suggested that participants’ voting decisions were more influenced by the research plans than who presented them. However, unconscious biases cannot be ruled out as factors in decision-making. Participants reported they would be keen to participate in such a process again; however, this enthusiasm was linked to a meal incentive. The impact of brevity on deliberative decision-making is discussed, along with potential modifications for future experiments.
url https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014523791
work_keys_str_mv AT cobismith publicengagementinprioritizingresearchproposals
_version_ 1724720921010241536