Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions

Jacquelin Burgess (1) , Andy Stirling (2) , Judy Clark , Gail Davies , Malcolm Eames , Kristina Staley , Suzanne Williamson

1 UCL - University College of London [London]
2 University of Sussex

This paper discusses the methodological development of (DM), a participatory, multi-criteria, option appraisal process that combines a novel approach to the use of quantitative decision analysis techniques with some significant innovations in the field of participatory deliberation. DM is a symmetrical process, engaging “specialists” and “citizens” in the same appraisal process, providing for consistency of framing, mutual inter-linkage and interrogation, and substantial opportunities for face-to-face discussion. Through a detailed case study of organ transplantation options, the paper discusses the steps in DM. The analysis shows that DM is able to elicit and document consensual judgments as well as divergent views by integrating analytic and deliberative components in a transparent, auditable process that creates many opportunities for personal learning, and provides a robust decision-support tool for contested science-policy issues.

Mots clés: Social Sciences & Humanities

Jacquelin Burgess, Andy Stirling, Judy Clark, Gail Davies, Malcolm Eames, et al.. Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions. Public Understanding of Science, 2007, 16 (3), pp.299-322. ⟨10.1177/0963662507077510⟩. ⟨hal-00571131⟩