Participatory budgeting for research funding decisions

Author:
Cobi CalyxUniversity of New South Wales, Sydney

Search for other papers by Cobi Calyx in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close
Open access
Get eTOC alerts
Rights and permissions Cite this article

This paper argues that funding decisions about scientific research should be made using participatory budgeting public engagement methods, to support publicly-funded research translation into evidence-based policymaking, given evident public support. This would reflect international shifts toward public participation in governance and respond to the need for changes in research funding policies, evidenced in studies showing how research funding allocations are inefficient or inequitable. Involving consumers in decision making is an established practice in health research, while experiments involving the public in prioritising between research proposals have promising results. Furthering such methods and moving towards participatory budgeting for research funding would further the shift towards participatory governance and public engagement with science. However, for participatory budgeting to support evidence-based policy by evidencing public support, who is participating is an important consideration. Upstream research does not yet have clear consumers for applying stakeholder participation methods established in health research. Moreover, civic engagement differs from consumer engagement in promoting democratic ideals. Legitimacy for public funding and policy decisions depends on a diversity of public participants in decision-making processes, reflecting broader society rather than a consumer group.

Abstract

This paper argues that funding decisions about scientific research should be made using participatory budgeting public engagement methods, to support publicly-funded research translation into evidence-based policymaking, given evident public support. This would reflect international shifts toward public participation in governance and respond to the need for changes in research funding policies, evidenced in studies showing how research funding allocations are inefficient or inequitable. Involving consumers in decision making is an established practice in health research, while experiments involving the public in prioritising between research proposals have promising results. Furthering such methods and moving towards participatory budgeting for research funding would further the shift towards participatory governance and public engagement with science. However, for participatory budgeting to support evidence-based policy by evidencing public support, who is participating is an important consideration. Upstream research does not yet have clear consumers for applying stakeholder participation methods established in health research. Moreover, civic engagement differs from consumer engagement in promoting democratic ideals. Legitimacy for public funding and policy decisions depends on a diversity of public participants in decision-making processes, reflecting broader society rather than a consumer group.

Key messages

  • Participatory budgeting public engagement methods could be used for science funding decisions.

  • Participatory budgeting could address the need for changes in research funding policies.

  • Participatory budgeting for public research funding would further the shift towards participatory governance and public engagement with science.

Introduction

This debate piece argues that funding decisions about scientific research should be made using participatory budgeting public engagement methods. This would support research translation into evidence-based policymaking, given evident public support. This reflects international shifts toward public participation in governance and responds to the need for change in research funding, evidenced in studies showing research funding allocations are inefficient or inequitable.

Research shows scientists waste time writing grant proposals for audiences of peers, amidst crises of trust in science, evidence and governments documented internationally. Scientists’ grant-writing efforts can be used in participatory budgeting as a form of public engagement, to promote greater public accountability of science and greater likelihood of evidence-based policy being linked to research outcomes. Public engagement in decision making about research funding would provide evidence for public support, a lack of which can be a barrier to evidence-based policy.

Researchers waste time on grant application processes (Herbert et al, 2013), and models of how funding decisions are made are rightly challenged. It could cost the same to give all researchers a grant automatically as to continue established processes for funding decisions (Gordon and Poulin, 2009). Variations abound: ‘Some – or all – of the research budget could be allocated to eligible scientists in equal shares or given to a few lucky ones at random’ (Ioaniddis, 2011). Researchers concluding that funding allocations for research were somewhat random and unreliable (Graves et al, 2011) suggested an alternative. Theirs was allowing panels to classify grants into three categories: certain funding, certain rejection, and funding based on random draw.

If randomness is preferable to the norm, public engagement processes should be preferable again given democratic values. This would allow public involvement to genuinely influence funding decisions. Some public engagement is critiqued as consultation to rubber-stamp policymakers’ foregone conclusions (Wynne, 2006; Powell and Colin, 2009). So rather than focusing on the top 10% that certainly gets funding (Graves et al, 2011), public engagement could prioritise among proposals facing random chance. Involving publics in decision making has merits beyond randomness in improving the legitimacy of funding decisions through participatory governance.

We need to improve processes for decision making about research funding (Geard and Noble, 2010), irrespective of the push for greater public engagement with science (Woolley et al, 2016). Streamlining grant processes does not reduce the time researchers spend on applications (Barnett et al, 2015), so making existing research funding schemes more efficient is not the solution. Public engagement in the form of participatory budgeting for research would add value to the effort researchers put into proposals, given the value of scientists’ public engagement (Poliakoff and Webb, 2007). Public support and legitimacy for a research proposal should also increase possibilities for evidence-based policy.

Ways proposed to increase value in setting research priorities include improving transparency of the processes by which funders prioritise and making clear how potential users of research are considered (Chalmers et al, 2014). Involving potential users in participatory budgeting about research proposals promotes transparency and goes beyond considering users to involving them in decision making. Methods for involving publics in research funding decisions have been trialled internationally with promising results (Petit-Zeman et al, 2010; Rowe et al, 2010; Smith, 2014). The majority of participants in such studies found the experience valuable and would participate again, particularly if given incentives such as meals or childcare. Further trials and moving towards genuine participatory budgeting in public research funding decisions would further the shift to participatory governance and public engagement with science.

However, the shift towards participatory governance of research funding priorities is ‘a highly political intervention’ (Miller et al, 2018) that can challenge existing assumptions and arrangements, such as the epistemic authority of science. Researchers writing about this called for more policy-oriented research on public involvement, specifically into processes, arrangements and initiatives to mobilise public involvement within and across organisations and research systems. This debate piece responds to that call, specifically focused on participatory budgeting as a method.

Background

Defining participatory budgeting

In participatory budgeting, communities decide on the allocation of public funding for projects, typically coordinated by city or regional authorities for local projects (Cabannes and Ming, 2014; Fain et al, 2016). This model could be adapted by grant-allocating authorities for making research funding decisions. Publicly-funded research projects can be encompassed within the definition: ‘participatory budgeting is a decision-making process through which citizens deliberate and negotiate over the distribution of public resources’ (Wampler, 2007: 21).

Conditions of inclusion, deliberation, and citizen-driven authority are basic to participatory budgeting (Miller et al, 2017). These are likewise key to many other participatory practices; what makes participatory budgeting distinct is explicit consideration of funding and resourcing for what is being prioritised.

Placing the ‘money issue’ discussion at the end of a line of any participatory process risks making citizens feel that the declaration that they are ‘at the core of the process’ is just a discursive and rhetoric artefact… If participation intends to contribute to recreate trust in institutions, then revealing issues related to resources at the end of a participatory process can only generate frustration and further political disenchantment. (Allegretti and Copello, 2018: 36)

This differs from established research prioritisation methods such as James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships, in which consumers collaborate in setting priorities around research gaps for areas of health research (James Lind Alliance, 2020; Manafò et al, 2018). This is one among proliferating examples from health research in which consumers are engaged. Explicitly funding-focused methods have been trialled (Rowe et al, 2010; Smith, 2014). However, these were research experiments rather than actual participatory budgeting, based on simulated rather than actual budget allocations. The promise of such experiments means real participatory budgeting should be trialled.

What else is not participatory budgeting, even if tending in the directions of transparency and inclusion? A public university budgeting committee claimed to decentralise through a participatory budgeting process, which aimed to be ‘open to and inclusive of the entire campus community’ (Rossmann and Shanahan, 2012). There was a single broader community representative among 23 voting members, so it was not public in the traditional sense of participatory budgeting. Labelling such activities as ‘participatory budgeting’ loses sight of what is distinctive, valuable, and potentially transformative in the idea (Miller et al, 2017).

Participatory budgeting began as a local practice in the late 1980s in the south of Brazil, spreading regionally and eventually internationally (Dias and Júlio, 2018). Participatory budgeting in Brazil led to a greater proportion of budgets dedicated to sanitation and health services, linked to a reduction in infant mortality rates (Gonçalves, 2014). As well as supporting greater public engagement in science, such methods can promote accountability around broader sustainable development goals (Donald and Way, 2016).

Its origins in a non-Anglophone region of the Global South delayed its merge with the movement towards upstream public engagement with science. Despite international use, participatory budgeting was not included in a widely cited typology of public engagement mechanisms, the authors acknowledging their bias:

Although there are more than 100 mechanisms listed, the bias is on UK and US types that appear in the literature or in technical reports that are known to us: there are undoubtedly more…. (Rowe and Frewer, 2005: 256)

This debate piece likewise lacks citations from languages such as Portuguese relevant to defining participatory budgeting and establishing its origins, an omission explicitly acknowledged as a limitation of this work.

What types of research funding decisions suit participatory budgeting?

‘Patient’, ‘consumer’ or ‘user’ involvement in funding decisions is established in health and medical research (Manafò et al, 2018), however it differs significantly from participatory budgeting in that participation is typically limited to these stakeholder groups. These terms convey a more direct relationship to the research than that of the general ‘public’, giving these non-scientists relevant expertise in the research area. Medical charities that fund research increasingly involve patients in review processes, with ratings by people with a disease or their carers shaping whether proposals progress to scientific peer review (Petit-Zeman et al, 2010). An example of the benefit of involving those with lived experiences in review comes from arthritis research:

Our patient reviewer was the only person to spot that a researcher had assumed that people would only have one artificial joint – many people with arthritis have more than one replacement joint, so the suggested blood tests would provide unclear results. (Petit-Zeman et al, 2010)

This example reflects research showing that neglecting to involve consumers in research priority setting and design can lead to adverse patient outcomes (Thornton et al, 2003; Saunders et al, 2007).

Studies about public involvement in funding health research have been divided into three categories. Firstly, participation in review; secondly, criteria for allocating funds; thirdly, funding flows (Miller et al, 2018). Participation in review refers to either public participation in scientific review, or separate public review processes (Fleurence et al, 2013). The second category concerns consumer-identified values and whether such criteria are included in calculating allocations, or whether community-based participatory research are among criteria (Moran and Davidson, 2011). The third category, funding flows, includes research about incentives and barriers for public participation, such as costs to publics involved in review, for instance of travel or childcare, whether to pay sitting fees, and mechanisms for involving publics in research proposals and participatory action research (O’Donnell and Entwistle, 2004).

As an example of participation in review, the Cancer Council of New South Wales (CCNSW) in Australia developed a two-stage assessment process, involving scientific and consumer review stages. Table 1 (from Saunders et al, 2007) detailed the three steps. The first was research council review, including ethics processes; the second was consumer review based on dedicated criteria. Thirdly the research committee made recommendations to the board, giving equal weighting to ratings in steps 1 and 2 and assessing any major differences.

This is an example of how consumer involvement is established in health and medical research funding decisions – what of other research fields?

Could this be established for fields of research in which who should participate is less obvious? Public ‘upstream’ engagement at early funding stages is increasingly recognised as important in fields with obvious ethical challenges. Reflecting this, a representative from a UK grant funding agency said:

If you think about our standard grants, or our standard fellowships, those are, I suppose, less overtly driven by public voice, per se.… But there will be particular areas where there’s great sensitivity… where clearly particular engagement in the public agenda is absolutely key, to make sure that we’ve got that right. (Van Bekkum et al, 2016)

An example of public engagement in prioritising funding within a controversial area involved proposals of research using genetic modification in food crops (Smith, 2014). Frustration among participating scientists regarding the state of public dialogue about their field motivated them to participate. Nanotechnology has been another topic for public decision making about priorities, given sensitivities (Jones, 2008), though not participatory budgeting per se. Biobanking, genomics and e-health have also been foci for public deliberations (Van Hoof and Mayeur, 2019). Emerging technologies and areas of research at risk of public protest or legal challenge (Stewart and Lewis, 2017; Burgess et al, 2018; Ogilvie et al, 2019) are logical areas to prioritise participatory budgeting methods to test legitimacy. Public policies regulating their use likely depend on public support, or risk uninvited participation (Wynne, 2007; Jasanoff, 2012; Chilvers and Kearnes, 2015; Liepold, 2019) through protest and moratoria, undermining research value.

The problem with embedding public decision making only in sensitive research areas, or for those with obvious ‘consumers’ or users, forms the broader argument for upstream public engagement. How do we know when a research area will be sensitive or who will be impacted by research? The promise of upstream public engagement is that it helps to address these questions and avoid costly unproductive research endeavours (Wilsdon and Willis, 2004; Demeritt, 2015). This makes the case for widespread participatory budgeting about research funding decisions.

Though there is much published about upstream engagement, there has been little exploration of how to group fields of science for such engagement. Ample writing perpetuates dichotomies between applied and basic research, even with examples of how basic research begets applications (McNie et al, 2016; Doran et al, 2017; Veletanlić, 2020). Public research funding bodies may place research proposals into pools based on traditional fields of science; alternatively proposals could be grouped according to a spectrum of value criteria, ranging from strongly science-centric to strongly user-oriented (McNie et al, 2016), to resolve fears that basic sciences would be undervalued by the public. Rating a range of proposals rather than ranking them could reduce a sense of competition between proposals to the public; ratings were correlated with an explicit voting preference between three proposals in one public experiment (Smith, 2014).

Limiting participation to consumers, patients or carers is a key difference between increasingly established participatory methods in health research and participatory budgeting. Participatory budgeting has roots in democratisation and emphasis on wide public involvement, whereas engaging those with lived experiences relevant to a condition is key in health research. Whereas participatory budgeting aims to enable ‘everyday people’ to participate in decision making about how budgets impacting them are spent, consumer engagement in healthcare is oriented not towards the masses but rather those individuals with special insights or interests relevant to the topic of inquiry. This consumer approach has been applied to funding in other fields of science through a very different method: crowdfunding.

Learnings from science crowdfunding

There are already mechanisms for public participation in research funding decisions, through crowdfunding. However, participation in crowdfunding is based on values of market citizenship (Root, 2007), in which people’s participation in decision making depends on their capacity to contribute private funds. In contrast, participatory budgeting is a process administered by or in partnership with an authority in charge of funds. As participatory governance and deliberative democracy relate to increased trust in science and governance, as well as collaborative learning (Talpin, 2012), participatory budgeting is aligned with allocating public research funds. While crowdsourcing success for research depends on large social networks (Aleksina et al, 2019), participatory budgeting for research funding does not depend on researchers drawing in their own participants.

Nonetheless, learnings from research crowdfunding can be applied in considering participatory budgeting for research funding decisions. Research has suggested crowdfunding has increased success rates for junior scientists and women, though this correlates with their smaller funding requests (Sauermann et al, 2019). Research specifically into medical research crowdfunding found that campaigns could succeed regardless of disease characteristics, though cautioned that stated preferences of prospective donors differ from the revealed preferences (Aleksina et al, 2019).

Science crowdfunding projects are more likely to be successful if their presentation includes visualisations, humour and interaction between researchers and donors (Schäfer et al, 2018). Experiments involving the public in research funding decisions included presenting scientists first having science communication training, after which results indicated that participants’ understanding of proposed projects influenced their voting (Smith, 2014). Thus, the way that research proposals are presented influences their success; though this is also true in traditional research funding models

Discussion

Public review before, after or in parallel with peer review?

The introductory argument was that participatory budgeting could prioritise between proposals otherwise facing random draw, after peer-review panels classified grants into three categories: certain funding, certain rejection, or (the majority) in the middle (Graves et al, 2011). In contrast, examples from medical research funding have involved patient scoring, with only those rated sufficiently moving forward to peer review (Petit-Zeman et al, 2010).

In this piece, the argument that public decision making should happen after peer review is made for two reasons. Firstly, the role of traditional powers in the vetting process is maintained; only the satisfactory field of research proposals for which randomness is preferable have the option of selection via participatory budgeting. Therein lies the second reason: the process is optional. Researcher teams could opt in or out of the public review process (opting if not to accept rejection and revise their proposal for future funding rounds). For scientists dismissive or fearful of public engagement, the possibility remains of gaining funding through exceptionally positive peer reviewers without requiring public engagement. For most scientists, who see value in public engagement but who may lack incentives to participate, potential funding could strengthen motivation or justification. Linking funding opportunities to engagement would address barriers to scientists investing time communicating with the public and policymakers.

The argument here is not that peer review before public review would lead to better outcomes. Rather, it is a more incremental change and thus less threatening to those currently in power, given that participatory governance of research funding is ‘a highly political intervention’ (Miller et al, 2018). An argument for consumer decision making in the CCNSW example was that ‘the demand for research funding consistently exceeds the supply of CCNSW funds and choices have to be made, even amongst applications that have significant scientific merit’ (Saunders et al, 2007). The argument that decisions must be made between applications with strong scientific merit underpins the argument that public priorities should decide between those. Public prioritisation following peer-review vetting maintains scientific merit as the basis for funding.

A risk of this staged approach of peer review then participatory budgeting is in further dragging out research funding decisions. A more radical alternative would be for these processes to happen in parallel, relying on host institutions’ internal ethics and quality processes to ensure only quality proposals reach review. This is a possibility ripe for exploration which could yield outcomes informing other areas of evidence-based policymaking. Data about whether public preferences aligned with or were different from those of peer review would be valuable for policymakers contemplating the public legitimacy of policies relevant to science. Research funding organisations, particularly those public or charitably funded, could have insights into how their processes and priorities reflect society more broadly. Importantly, processes in parallel could be more time-efficient than a two-stage process, allowing research and engagement to progress faster.

Incentives for researchers

Low success rates from time-consuming grant application processes mean at least some researchers are willing to try alternatives. The success rate in a sample of science crowdfunding (Sauermann et al, 2019) was at least double that of American research funding authorities, with 48% success in crowdfunding versus as low as 16% for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). However, the greater volume of funding allocated via the NIH than via crowdfunding limits comparisons of success rates.

There are more incentives for early career researchers to participate in public processes; both science crowdfunding and experiments in public participation (Smith, 2014) found that earlier career researchers fared better than senior researchers. An interpretation is that public assessors consider perceived need as well as scientific merit, as well as potentially deriving utility from supporting the education and professional development of early career researchers (Sauermann et al, 2019).

Non-financial incentives should also be considered. Research on patient involvement in decision making about health funding found it enhanced researchers’ ability to communicate about science (Petit-Zeman et al, 2010). Scientists who participated in a trial of public involvement in research funding decisions received science communication training (Smith, 2014). The professional development benefits for researchers participating in public decision making may apply regardless of whether or not their proposal is funded through the process. Greater science communication skills may allow scientists to play a greater role in evidence-based policy processes.

Would public involvement in research funding increase the likelihood of evidence-based policy? Empirical relationships have been established between public opinion and policymaking, even though causal impact one way or the other tends to be unclear (Page, 1994). This suggests public support for research through participatory budgeting can serve as a form of evidence for policymakers, as well as for researchers seeking to engage with decision makers to influence policy.

Can non-experts make reasonable funding decisions?

Conventional signals of quality, such as prior publications, have less relationship with science crowdfunding success than in traditional research funding models, suggesting that publics may apply different decision criteria, potentially for example the value of developing early career researchers (Sauermann et al, 2019).

A trial of public involvement in prioritising research proposals found the public arrived at the same preferences across sites, in which the order of presented proposals was varied to prevent presentation order biases (Smith, 2014). This indicates public decision making about research funding can be consistent, even if based on different decision criteria to traditional funding bodies. This difference may be preferable, given the current crisis of trust in government and science, as long as research proposals presented meet university ethics and research standards.

Another experiment found that the public did not vote for a ‘red herring’, ethically dubious project presented as one of four (Rowe et al, 2010). While voting was spread across the other three legitimate proposals, the fictional dubious proposal received no votes. Limited research in this space has suggested that the public can make research funding decisions that choose ethically sound rather than dubious proposals.

Who is the public?

Ideals of broad civic engagement, scientific literacy and public engagement with science depend on diverse public participants in decision-making processes. Research in participatory budgeting (Lim, 2016; Fung, 2015) reflects that in public engagement with science (Calyx, 2018), showing a lack of representativeness in deliberative processes generally. In Korea, for example,

the voices of citizens that were actually accepted in the decision making of budgeting were rather biased… a wider and freer participation opportunity alone may rather provide more chances to those who already have more power and bases of participation such as interest groups than to those less powerful or individual citizens. (Kim, 2016: 81)

Experiments with public involvement in prioritising research funding found an overrepresentation of professional occupations and higher than average levels of education among participants, after people with science qualifications had been screened out (Smith, 2014).

This is why mechanisms for incentivising public participants are an important aspect of research into public involvement in funding allocations (Miller et al, 2018). Incentives as simple as providing a meal within deliberation time (Smith, 2014), or as structurally significant as childcare (O’Donnell and Entwistle, 2004), shape whether people can and will participate. Indeed, structural considerations also impact science funding under the status quo (González Ramos and Bosch, 2013; Bauman et al, 2014). Arguably, greater civic and social impacts could come from engaging those least likely to participate without incentives. For example, research into why minorities are less likely to engage with informal science institutions is relevant to health equity and social justice outcomes beyond science literacy (Dawson, 2018).

Revisiting whether peer review and public processes could happen in parallel rather than in stages, another possibility is that multiple public processes engage different groups in different places. Replication across events and places was a feature of a trial of public prioritisation of research funding proposals (Smith, 2014), and further such experiments could yield insights for evidence-based policy. Multiple public processes align with theories of decentred democracy explored in the context of public engagement with science (Hayward, 2008; Irwin, 2015; Calyx, 2018). This has merit for engaging harder-to-reach groups whose voices may be marginalised or absent in a single public participatory event, as instances can occur in locations or cater to groups beyond the norms of public consultation processes. The costs of these further processes weigh against the civic and social benefits of engaging those less likely to participate.

Conclusion

Increasing evidence that research funding allocation methods are suboptimal, combined with declining trust in institutions and experts, indicate that research funding decisions could benefit from greater transparency and public participation. Participatory budgeting is a widely tested method of public engagement that, despite evidence of value in other contexts, has not yet been used for research funding decisions. Involvement of consumers in health research funding decisions is increasingly common; these models suggest paths forward for applying participatory budgeting in other research funding contexts. In these contexts, what ‘consumers’ to involve is not clear, particularly for upstream research and development of emerging technologies. These research areas are ideal for early public engagement, given risks of public disapproval and associated policy responses. For participatory budgeting to provide policymakers with evidence of public support, who the engaged public are is important, given that incentives influence who participates. Research indicates that randomness is preferable to current decision-making methods for research funding; participatory budgeting with its potential to promote democracy and evidence-based policy is an alternative for greater public legitimacy.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Associate Professor Gemma Carey for luring me back to research from government. Thank you to Professor Adrian Barnett for encouragement in this work from its inception during my PhD and for taking the time to review this paper. Thanks to the Climate and Sustainability Policy Research Group at Flinders University, particularly Associate Professor Cassandra Star, for hosting me and encouraging thoughts about policy. Thank you to Mark Calyx for taking extended paternity leave, enabling me to keep thinking and writing while we nurture tiny humans.

Research ethics statement

The author of this paper has declared that research ethics approval was not required since the paper does not present or draw directly on data/findings from empirical research.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  • Aleksina, A., Akulenka, S. and Lublóy, Á. (2019) Success factors of crowdfunding campaigns in medical research: perceptions and reality, Drug Discovery Today, 24(7): 141320.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Allegretti, G. and Copello, K. (2018) Winding around money issues: what’s new in Participatory Budgeting and which windows of opportunity are being opened?, Hope for Democracy: 30 Years of Participatory Budgeting Worldwide, Faro, Portugal: Oficina 3453, https://www.oficina.org.pt/hopefordemocracy.html.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Barnett, A.G., Graves, N., Clarke, P. and Herbert, D. (2015) The impact of a streamlined funding application process on application time: two cross-sectional surveys of Australian researchers, BMJ Open, 5(1): e006912.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bauman, M.D., Howell, L.P. and Villablanca, A.C. (2014) The women in medicine and health science program: an innovative initiative to support female faculty at the University of California Davis School of Medicine, Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 89(11): 1462.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Burgess, M., Mumford, J. and Lavery, J. (2018) Public engagement pathways for emerging GM insect technologies, in BMC Proceedings, 12(S8): 12.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cabannes, Y. and Ming, Z. (2014) Participatory budgeting at scale and bridging the rural−urban divide in Chengdu, Environment and Urbanization, 26(1): 25775.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Calyx, C. (2018) Tradeoffs in Deliberative Public Engagement With Science, PhD thesis, Canberra: Australian National University, doi: 10.25911/5d6fa131a998c.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chalmers, I., Bracken, M.B., Djulbegovic, B., Garattini, S., Grant, J., Gülmezoglu, A.M., Howells, D.W., Ioannidis, J.P. and Oliver, S. (2014) How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set, The Lancet, 383(9912): 15665.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chilvers, J. and Kearnes, M. (eds) (2015) Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics, Abingdon: Routledge.

  • Dawson, E. (2018) Reimagining publics and (non) participation: exploring exclusion from science communication through the experiences of low-income, minority ethnic groups, Public Understanding of Science, 27(7): 77286.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Demeritt, D. (2015) The promises of participation in science and political ecology, in T. Perreault, J.G. Bridge and J.D. McCarthy (eds) Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology, New York: Routledge, pp 22434.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dias, N. and Júlio, S. (2018) The next thirty years of participatory budgeting in the world start today, Hope for Democracy: 30 Years of Participatory Budgeting Worldwide, 1534.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Donald, K. and Way, S.A. (2016) Accountability for the sustainable development goals: a lost opportunity?, Ethics & International Affairs, 30(2): 20113.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Doran, E.M., Golden, J.S. and Turner II, B.L. (2017) From basic research to applied solutions: are two approaches to sustainability science emerging?, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 29(1): 13844.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fain, B., Goel, A. and Munagala, K. (2016) The Core of the Participatory Budgeting Problem, Conference paper, 12th Conference on Web and Internet Economics, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp 38499.

  • Fleurence, R., Selby, J.V., Odom-Walker, K., Hunt, G., Meltzer, D., Slutsky, J.R. and Yancy, C. (2013) How the patient-centered outcomes research institute is engaging patients and others in shaping its research agenda, Health Affairs, 32(2): 393400.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fung, A. (2015), Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future, Public Administration Review, 75(4): 513522.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Geard, N. and Noble, J. (2010) Modelling academic research funding as a resource allocation problem, Conference paper, 3rd World Congress on Social Simulation, University of Kassel, Germany.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gonçalves, S. (2014) The effects of participatory budgeting on municipal expenditures and infant mortality in Brazil, World Development, 53(1): 94110.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • González Ramos, A.M. and Bosch, N.V. (2013) International mobility of women in science and technology careers: shaping plans for personal and professional purposes, Gender, Place & Culture, 20(5): 61329.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gordon, R. and Poulin, B.J. (2009) Cost of the NSERC science grant peer review system exceeds the cost of giving every qualified researcher a baseline grant, Accountability in Research, 16(1): 1340.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Graves, N., Barnett, A.G. and Clarke, P. (2011) Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel, BMJ, 343: d4797.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hayward, B. (2008) Let’s talk about the weather: decentering democratic debate about climate change, Hypatia, 23(3): 7998.

  • Herbert, D.L., Barnett, A.G. and Graves, N. (2013) Funding: Australia’s grant system wastes time, Nature, 495(7441): 314.

  • Ioannidis, J.P. (2011) More time for research: fund people not projects, Nature, 477(7366): 529.

  • Irwin, A. (2015) On the local constitution of global futures. Science and democratic engagement in a decentred world, Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 3(2): 2433.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • James Lind Alliance (2020) Guidebook, version 9, https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/jla-guidebook/.

  • Jasanoff, S. (2012) Science and Public Reason, London: Routledge.

  • Jones, R. (2008) When it pays to ask the public, Nature Nanotechnology, 3(10): 578.

  • Kim, S. (ed) (2016) Participatory Governance and Policy Diffusion in Local Governments in Korea: Implementation of Participatory Budgeting, Sejong: Korea Development Institute.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Liepold, A. (2019) Cows, corn and communication: how the discourse around GMOs impacted legislation in the EU and the USA, in S. Slovic, V. Sarveswaran and S. Rangarajan (eds) Routledge Handbook of Ecocriticism and Environmental Communication, Abingdon: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, pp 25564.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lim, S., and Oh, Y. (2016) Online versus offline participation: Has the democratic potential of the internet been realized? Analysis of a participatory budgeting system in Korea, Public Performance & Management Review, 39(3): 676700.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Manafò, E., Petermann, L., Vandall-Walker, V. and Mason-Lai, P. (2018) Patient and public engagement in priority setting: a systematic rapid review of the literature, PloS One, 13(3): e0193579.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McNie, E.C., Parris, A. and Sarewitz, D. (2016) Improving the public value of science: a typology to inform discussion, design and implementation of research, Research Policy, 45(4): 88495.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Miller, F.A., Patton, S.J., Dobrow, M. and Berta, W. (2018) Public involvement in health research systems: a governance framework, Health Research Policy and Systems, 16(1): 79.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Miller, S.A., Hildreth, R.W. and Stewart, L.M. (2017) The modes of participation: a revised frame for identifying and analyzing participatory budgeting practices, Administration & Society, 51(8): 125481.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moran, R. and Davidson, P. (2011) An uneven spread: a review of public involvement in the National Institute of Health Research’s health technology assessment program, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 27(4): 3437.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • O’Donnell, M., Entwistle, V. (2004) Consumer involvement in research projects: the activities of research funders, Health Policy, 69(2): 22938.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ogilvie, S., McCarthy, A., Allen, W., Grant, A., Mark-Shadbolt, M., Pawson, S., Richardson, B., Strand, T., Langer, E.R. and Marzano, M. (2019) Unmanned aerial vehicles and biosecurity: enabling participatory-design to help address social licence to operate issues, Forests, 10(8): 695.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Page, B.I. (1994) Democratic responsiveness? Untangling the links between public opinion and policy, PS: Political Science & Politics, 27(1): 2529.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Petit-Zeman, S., Philpots, E. and Denegri, S. (2010) ‘Natural ground’ for medical research charities: public and patient involvement in research funding, Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 33(3): 24956.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Poliakoff, E. and Webb, T.L. (2007) What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?, Science Communication, 29(2): 24263.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Powell, M.C. and Colin, M. (2009) Participatory paradoxes: facilitating citizen engagement in science and technology from the top-down?, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 29(4): 32542.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Root, A. (2007) Market Citizenship: Experiments in Democracy and Globalization, London: Sage.

  • Rossmann, D. and Shanahan, E.A. (2012) Defining and achieving normative democratic values in participatory budgeting processes, Public Administration Review, 72(1): 5666.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(2): 25190.

  • Rowe, G., Rawsthorne, D., Scarpello, T. and Dainty, J.R. (2010) Public engagement in research funding: a study of public capabilities and engagement methodology, Public Understanding of Science, 19(2): 22539.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sauermann, H., Franzoni, C. and Shafi, K. (2019) Crowdfunding scientific research: descriptive insights and correlates of funding success, PloS One, 14(1): e0208384.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Saunders, C., Crossing, S., Penman, A., Butow, P. and Girgis, A. (2007) Operationalising a model framework for consumer and community participation in health and medical research, Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, 4(1).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schäfer, M.S., Metag, J., Feustle, J. and Herzog, L. (2018) Selling science 2.0: what scientific projects receive crowdfunding online?, Public Understanding of Science, 27(5): 496514.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Smith, C. (2014) Public engagement in prioritizing research proposals: a case study, SAGE Open, 4(1): 2158244014523791.

  • Stewart, I.S. and Lewis, D. (2017) Communicating contested geoscience to the public: moving from ‘matters of fact’to ‘matters of concern’, Earth-Science Reviews, 174(1): 12233.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Talpin, J. (2012) Schools of Democracy: How Ordinary Citizens (Sometimes) Become Competent in Participatory Budgeting Institutions, Colchester: ECPR Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Thornton, H., Edwards, A. and Elwyn, G. (2003) Evolving the multiple roles of ‘patients’ in health‐care research: reflections after involvement in a trial of shared decision‐making, Health Expectations, 6(3): 18997.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van Bekkum, J.E., Fergie, G.M. and Hilton, S. (2016) Health and medical research funding agencies’ promotion of public engagement within research: a qualitative interview study exploring the United Kingdom context, Health Research Policy and Systems, 14(1): 23.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van Hoof, W. and Mayeur, C. (2019) Towards a deliberative approach in public health policy making, European Journal of Public Health, 29(4): ckz185599.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Veletanlić, E. and , C. (2020) Implementing the innovation agenda: a study of change at a research funding agency, Minerva, 123.

  • Wampler, B. (2007) A guide to participatory budgeting, in A. Shah (ed) Participatory Budgeting, Washington, DC: The World Bank, pp 2154.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004) See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream, London: Demos.

  • Woolley, J.P., McGowan, M.L., Teare, H.J., Coathup, V., Fishman, J.R., Settersten, R.A., Sterckx, S., Kaye, J. and Juengst, E.T. (2016) Citizen science or scientific citizenship? Disentangling the uses of public engagement rhetoric in national research initiatives, BMC Medical Ethics, 17(1): 33.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wynne, B. (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: hitting the notes, but missing the music?, Public Health Genomics, 9(3): 21120.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wynne, B. (2007) Public participation in science and technology: performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake, East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 1(1): 99110.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Aleksina, A., Akulenka, S. and Lublóy, Á. (2019) Success factors of crowdfunding campaigns in medical research: perceptions and reality, Drug Discovery Today, 24(7): 141320.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Allegretti, G. and Copello, K. (2018) Winding around money issues: what’s new in Participatory Budgeting and which windows of opportunity are being opened?, Hope for Democracy: 30 Years of Participatory Budgeting Worldwide, Faro, Portugal: Oficina 3453, https://www.oficina.org.pt/hopefordemocracy.html.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Barnett, A.G., Graves, N., Clarke, P. and Herbert, D. (2015) The impact of a streamlined funding application process on application time: two cross-sectional surveys of Australian researchers, BMJ Open, 5(1): e006912.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bauman, M.D., Howell, L.P. and Villablanca, A.C. (2014) The women in medicine and health science program: an innovative initiative to support female faculty at the University of California Davis School of Medicine, Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 89(11): 1462.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Burgess, M., Mumford, J. and Lavery, J. (2018) Public engagement pathways for emerging GM insect technologies, in BMC Proceedings, 12(S8): 12.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cabannes, Y. and Ming, Z. (2014) Participatory budgeting at scale and bridging the rural−urban divide in Chengdu, Environment and Urbanization, 26(1): 25775.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Calyx, C. (2018) Tradeoffs in Deliberative Public Engagement With Science, PhD thesis, Canberra: Australian National University, doi: 10.25911/5d6fa131a998c.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chalmers, I., Bracken, M.B., Djulbegovic, B., Garattini, S., Grant, J., Gülmezoglu, A.M., Howells, D.W., Ioannidis, J.P. and Oliver, S. (2014) How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set, The Lancet, 383(9912): 15665.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chilvers, J. and Kearnes, M. (eds) (2015) Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics, Abingdon: Routledge.

  • Dawson, E. (2018) Reimagining publics and (non) participation: exploring exclusion from science communication through the experiences of low-income, minority ethnic groups, Public Understanding of Science, 27(7): 77286.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Demeritt, D. (2015) The promises of participation in science and political ecology, in T. Perreault, J.G. Bridge and J.D. McCarthy (eds) Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology, New York: Routledge, pp 22434.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dias, N. and Júlio, S. (2018) The next thirty years of participatory budgeting in the world start today, Hope for Democracy: 30 Years of Participatory Budgeting Worldwide, 1534.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Donald, K. and Way, S.A. (2016) Accountability for the sustainable development goals: a lost opportunity?, Ethics & International Affairs, 30(2): 20113.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Doran, E.M., Golden, J.S. and Turner II, B.L. (2017) From basic research to applied solutions: are two approaches to sustainability science emerging?, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 29(1): 13844.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fain, B., Goel, A. and Munagala, K. (2016) The Core of the Participatory Budgeting Problem, Conference paper, 12th Conference on Web and Internet Economics, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp 38499.

  • Fleurence, R., Selby, J.V., Odom-Walker, K., Hunt, G., Meltzer, D., Slutsky, J.R. and Yancy, C. (2013) How the patient-centered outcomes research institute is engaging patients and others in shaping its research agenda, Health Affairs, 32(2): 393400.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fung, A. (2015), Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future, Public Administration Review, 75(4): 513522.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Geard, N. and Noble, J. (2010) Modelling academic research funding as a resource allocation problem, Conference paper, 3rd World Congress on Social Simulation, University of Kassel, Germany.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gonçalves, S. (2014) The effects of participatory budgeting on municipal expenditures and infant mortality in Brazil, World Development, 53(1): 94110.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • González Ramos, A.M. and Bosch, N.V. (2013) International mobility of women in science and technology careers: shaping plans for personal and professional purposes, Gender, Place & Culture, 20(5): 61329.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gordon, R. and Poulin, B.J. (2009) Cost of the NSERC science grant peer review system exceeds the cost of giving every qualified researcher a baseline grant, Accountability in Research, 16(1): 1340.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Graves, N., Barnett, A.G. and Clarke, P. (2011) Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel, BMJ, 343: d4797.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hayward, B. (2008) Let’s talk about the weather: decentering democratic debate about climate change, Hypatia, 23(3): 7998.

  • Herbert, D.L., Barnett, A.G. and Graves, N. (2013) Funding: Australia’s grant system wastes time, Nature, 495(7441): 314.

  • Ioannidis, J.P. (2011) More time for research: fund people not projects, Nature, 477(7366): 529.

  • Irwin, A. (2015) On the local constitution of global futures. Science and democratic engagement in a decentred world, Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 3(2): 2433.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • James Lind Alliance (2020) Guidebook, version 9, https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/jla-guidebook/.

  • Jasanoff, S. (2012) Science and Public Reason, London: Routledge.

  • Jones, R. (2008) When it pays to ask the public, Nature Nanotechnology, 3(10): 578.

  • Kim, S. (ed) (2016) Participatory Governance and Policy Diffusion in Local Governments in Korea: Implementation of Participatory Budgeting, Sejong: Korea Development Institute.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Liepold, A. (2019) Cows, corn and communication: how the discourse around GMOs impacted legislation in the EU and the USA, in S. Slovic, V. Sarveswaran and S. Rangarajan (eds) Routledge Handbook of Ecocriticism and Environmental Communication, Abingdon: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, pp 25564.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lim, S., and Oh, Y. (2016) Online versus offline participation: Has the democratic potential of the internet been realized? Analysis of a participatory budgeting system in Korea, Public Performance & Management Review, 39(3): 676700.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Manafò, E., Petermann, L., Vandall-Walker, V. and Mason-Lai, P. (2018) Patient and public engagement in priority setting: a systematic rapid review of the literature, PloS One, 13(3): e0193579.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McNie, E.C., Parris, A. and Sarewitz, D. (2016) Improving the public value of science: a typology to inform discussion, design and implementation of research, Research Policy, 45(4): 88495.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Miller, F.A., Patton, S.J., Dobrow, M. and Berta, W. (2018) Public involvement in health research systems: a governance framework, Health Research Policy and Systems, 16(1): 79.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Miller, S.A., Hildreth, R.W. and Stewart, L.M. (2017) The modes of participation: a revised frame for identifying and analyzing participatory budgeting practices, Administration & Society, 51(8): 125481.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moran, R. and Davidson, P. (2011) An uneven spread: a review of public involvement in the National Institute of Health Research’s health technology assessment program, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 27(4): 3437.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • O’Donnell, M., Entwistle, V. (2004) Consumer involvement in research projects: the activities of research funders, Health Policy, 69(2): 22938.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ogilvie, S., McCarthy, A., Allen, W., Grant, A., Mark-Shadbolt, M., Pawson, S., Richardson, B., Strand, T., Langer, E.R. and Marzano, M. (2019) Unmanned aerial vehicles and biosecurity: enabling participatory-design to help address social licence to operate issues, Forests, 10(8): 695.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Page, B.I. (1994) Democratic responsiveness? Untangling the links between public opinion and policy, PS: Political Science & Politics, 27(1): 2529.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Petit-Zeman, S., Philpots, E. and Denegri, S. (2010) ‘Natural ground’ for medical research charities: public and patient involvement in research funding, Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 33(3): 24956.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Poliakoff, E. and Webb, T.L. (2007) What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?, Science Communication, 29(2): 24263.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Powell, M.C. and Colin, M. (2009) Participatory paradoxes: facilitating citizen engagement in science and technology from the top-down?, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 29(4): 32542.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Root, A. (2007) Market Citizenship: Experiments in Democracy and Globalization, London: Sage.

  • Rossmann, D. and Shanahan, E.A. (2012) Defining and achieving normative democratic values in participatory budgeting processes, Public Administration Review, 72(1): 5666.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(2): 25190.

  • Rowe, G., Rawsthorne, D., Scarpello, T. and Dainty, J.R. (2010) Public engagement in research funding: a study of public capabilities and engagement methodology, Public Understanding of Science, 19(2): 22539.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sauermann, H., Franzoni, C. and Shafi, K. (2019) Crowdfunding scientific research: descriptive insights and correlates of funding success, PloS One, 14(1): e0208384.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Saunders, C., Crossing, S., Penman, A., Butow, P. and Girgis, A. (2007) Operationalising a model framework for consumer and community participation in health and medical research, Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, 4(1).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schäfer, M.S., Metag, J., Feustle, J. and Herzog, L. (2018) Selling science 2.0: what scientific projects receive crowdfunding online?, Public Understanding of Science, 27(5): 496514.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Smith, C. (2014) Public engagement in prioritizing research proposals: a case study, SAGE Open, 4(1): 2158244014523791.

  • Stewart, I.S. and Lewis, D. (2017) Communicating contested geoscience to the public: moving from ‘matters of fact’to ‘matters of concern’, Earth-Science Reviews, 174(1): 12233.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Talpin, J. (2012) Schools of Democracy: How Ordinary Citizens (Sometimes) Become Competent in Participatory Budgeting Institutions, Colchester: ECPR Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Thornton, H., Edwards, A. and Elwyn, G. (2003) Evolving the multiple roles of ‘patients’ in health‐care research: reflections after involvement in a trial of shared decision‐making, Health Expectations, 6(3): 18997.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van Bekkum, J.E., Fergie, G.M. and Hilton, S. (2016) Health and medical research funding agencies’ promotion of public engagement within research: a qualitative interview study exploring the United Kingdom context, Health Research Policy and Systems, 14(1): 23.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van Hoof, W. and Mayeur, C. (2019) Towards a deliberative approach in public health policy making, European Journal of Public Health, 29(4): ckz185599.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Veletanlić, E. and , C. (2020) Implementing the innovation agenda: a study of change at a research funding agency, Minerva, 123.

  • Wampler, B. (2007) A guide to participatory budgeting, in A. Shah (ed) Participatory Budgeting, Washington, DC: The World Bank, pp 2154.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004) See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream, London: Demos.

  • Woolley, J.P., McGowan, M.L., Teare, H.J., Coathup, V., Fishman, J.R., Settersten, R.A., Sterckx, S., Kaye, J. and Juengst, E.T. (2016) Citizen science or scientific citizenship? Disentangling the uses of public engagement rhetoric in national research initiatives, BMC Medical Ethics, 17(1): 33.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wynne, B. (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: hitting the notes, but missing the music?, Public Health Genomics, 9(3): 21120.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wynne, B. (2007) Public participation in science and technology: performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake, East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 1(1): 99110.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
Cobi CalyxUniversity of New South Wales, Sydney

Search for other papers by Cobi Calyx in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close

Content Metrics

May 2022 onwards Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 521 521 68
PDF Downloads 191 191 17

Altmetrics

Dimensions