IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jnlpup/v41y2021i2p228-250_2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Group proximity and mutual understanding: measuring onsite impact of a citizens’ summit

Author

Listed:
  • Pigmans, Klara
  • Dignum, Virginia
  • Doorn, Neelke

Abstract

To better understand the impact of deliberations during participatory policymaking events, we introduce and explore the concept of group proximity. An example of such events is citizens’ summits, during which many parallel groups deliberate on solutions for a policy issue. At the summit that was studied, each group followed a value deliberation process with the aim to increase mutual understanding among participants. They were asked to rank the solutions in their order of preference before and after the deliberation. From these rankings, group proximity can be calculated with a rank correlation, enabling a precise comparison of participants’ preferences in each deliberative group. High group proximity indicates very similar rankings in a deliberative group, while low group proximity demonstrates the opposite. Comparing group proximity of the before and after rankings shows if a group ranked convergent, unchanged or divergent. This measure allows for a quantitative analysis of early-stage public policymaking processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Pigmans, Klara & Dignum, Virginia & Doorn, Neelke, 2021. "Group proximity and mutual understanding: measuring onsite impact of a citizens’ summit," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 228-250, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:41:y:2021:i:2:p:228-250_2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0143814X19000230/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:41:y:2021:i:2:p:228-250_2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pup .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.