IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpxmxx/v20y2018i11p1623-1642.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are we all on the same page? A qualitative study of the facilitation challenges associated with the implementation of deliberative priority-setting

Author

Listed:
  • Amanda Crompton
  • Justin Waring
  • Bridget Roe
  • Rebecca O’Connor

Abstract

Collaborative governance has given rise to decision-making methodologies promoting democracy, inclusivity and transparency. This is exemplified by deliberative priority-setting (DPS) that blends cost-effectiveness analysis with stakeholder deliberation. Little is known however, about the facilitation challenges when ‘technical’ and ‘social’ elements are combined in a methodology. This paper investigates the facilitation challenges of implementing a DPS project within the English National Health Service (NHS). Our study examines the relationship between facilitation and the effectiveness of DPS processes, highlighting the importance of knowledge management as facilitators seek to translate technical information, to enhance the deliberative experience and promote legitimate decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Amanda Crompton & Justin Waring & Bridget Roe & Rebecca O’Connor, 2018. "Are we all on the same page? A qualitative study of the facilitation challenges associated with the implementation of deliberative priority-setting," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(11), pages 1623-1642, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpxmxx:v:20:y:2018:i:11:p:1623-1642
    DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2017.1417463
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14719037.2017.1417463
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14719037.2017.1417463?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:taf:rpxmxx:v:20:y:2018:i:11:p:1623-1642. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rpxm .

    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.