abstract: Participatory approaches to policy-making and research are thought to “open up” technical decision-making to broader considerations, empower diverse public audiences, and inform policies that address pluralistic public goods. Many studies of participatory efforts focus on specific features or outcomes of those efforts, such as the format of a participatory event or the opinions of participants. While valuable, such research has not resolved conceptual problems and critiques of participatory efforts regarding, for example, their reinforcement of expert perspectives or their inability to impact policy- and decision-making. I studied two participatory efforts using survey data collected from participants, interviews with policy makers and experts associated with each project, and an analysis of project notes, meeting minutes, and my own personal reflections about each project. Both projects were based one type of participatory effort called Participatory Technology Assessment (pTA). I examined how project goals, materials, and the values, past experiences, and judgments of practitioners influenced decisions that shaped two participatory efforts to better understand how practitioners approached the challenges associated with participatory efforts. I found four major themes that influenced decisions about these projects: Promoting learning; building capacity to host pTA events; fostering good deliberation; and policy relevance. Project organizers engaged in iterative discussions to negotiate how learning goals related to dominant ideas from policy and expert communities and frequently reflected on the impact of participatory efforts on participants and on broader socio-political systems. Practitioners chose to emphasize criteria for deliberation that were flexible and encompassing. They relied heavily on internal discussions about materials and format, and on feedback collected from participants, policy makers, and other stakeholders, to shape both projects, though some decisions resulted in unexpected and undesirable outcomes for participant discussions and policy relevance. Past experience played a heavy role in many decisions about participatory format and concerns about deliberative or participatory theory were only nominally present. My emphasis on understanding the practice of participatory efforts offers a way to reframe research on participatory efforts away from studying ‘moments’ of participation to studying the larger role participatory efforts play in socio-political systems. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Sustainability 2019

This study looks at the National Citizens’ Technology Forum (NCTF), a modified version of the consensus conference, which took place in March, 2008 in six cities across the U.S. to understand how inclusive these methods of public participation are in practice. The study focuses on two of these sites. Inclusion of participants was defined in terms of presence, voice and being heard. Transcripts of the audio-visual recordings of the proceedings were the main data of analysis. By focusing on the talk within these deliberative forums, the study looked at how the rules of engagement and status (ascribed and achieved) differences between participants can affect inclusion. The analysis did not reveal any substantial effects of ascribed characteristics on deliberation. Facilitation and the presence of expertise among the participants were found to effect inclusion and equality among participants. These findings suggest that organizers and facilitators of deliberative exercises have to be reflexive of their role as well as aware of the group dynamics. The results also address the larger questions within science and technology policy like the role of expertise and the public in decision making, the institutional design of participatory exercises, and their relation to the political culture and the policy process.

This study looks at the National Citizens' Technology Forum (NCTF), a modified version of the consensus conference, which took place in March, 2008 in six cities across the U.S. to understand how inclusive these methods of public participation are in practice. The research focused on two of these sites. Inclusion of participants was defined in terms of presence, voice and being heard. Transcripts of the audio-visual recordings of the proceedings were the main data of analysis. By focusing on the talk within these deliberative forums, the study looked at how the rules of engagement and status (ascribed and achieved) differences between participants can affect inclusion. The analysis did not reveal any substantial effects of ascribed characteristics on deliberation. Facilitation and the presence of expertise among the participants were found to influence inclusion and equality among participants. These findings suggest that organizers and facilitators of deliberative exercises have to be reflexive of their role as well as aware of the group dynamics. The results also address the larger questions within science and technology policy like the role of expertise and the public in decision making, the institutional design of participatory exercises, and their relation to the political culture and the policy process.