A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms

By G. Rowe, L. Frewer. 2005

1,822 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Communication

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2966ce00c400da52eb3d3e768af13a4dcd746cfd

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

1. C. Pohl
2. Michael Stauffacher
3. Pius Krütli
4. J. Varner
5. E. McNie
6. W. Poortinga
7. Nick F. Pidgeon
8. G. Rowe

In Communication

1. C. Pohl
2. Michael Stauffacher
3. Pius Krütli
4. J. Varner
5. E. McNie
6. G. Rowe

Citations in the corpus

• Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: reliability, validity and limitations (2008, methodology): “There are various reasons for conducting engagement (e.g. to ascertain public views and/or to provide an input into a decision-making process), and various methods for achieving this (Rowe and Frewer (2005) list over 100 different mechanisms).”
• The Delphi technique: Past, present, and future prospects — Introduction to the special issue☆ (2011, neutral): “In these circumstances, the question becomes: how does one include diverse perspectives from many people (a heterogeneity of panel membership that various papers in this volume support)? Although many methods have been developed [22], most rely upon small group processes that have been criticised fo”
• Moving Toward the Deliberate Co-Production of Climate Science Knowledge (2015, background): “More extensive engagement, such as through negotiation and mediation activities, tends to lead to higher-quality policy decisions, while cursory public or management input at meetings does not (Beierle 2002; Rowe and Frewer 2005).”
• Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature (2007, background): “In their effort to develop a typology of public engagement mechanisms, Rowe and Frewer (2005) find that most mechanisms fall into one of three types based on how communication flows between society and sponsor, or in this paper’s context, society and science.”
• An inventory of invasive alien species in China (2012, background): “How representative the stakeholder group should be depends on the aim of the process (e.g. Rowe and Frewer 2005, Webler and Tuler 2006, Reed 2008, Renn and Schweizer 2009, Wesselink et al. 2011).”
• Unpacking “Participation” in the Adaptive Management of Social–ecological Systems: a Critical Review (2006, background): “There are several typologies that distil participation based on their objectives, structure, or function (e.g., Pimbert and Pretty 1994, Arnstein 1969) or on the direction through which information travels among participants (Rowe and Frewer 2005) (see Table 2).”
• Ten reflective steps for rendering research societally relevant (2017, methodology): “To specify the interaction with disciplines and societal actors, we introduce Rowe and Frewer’s (2005) distinction of three types of public engagement.”
• Scientific Outreach: Toward Effective Public Engagement with Biological Science (2014, background): “Effectiveness inherently depends on an explicit definition of goals and an assessment of how well the exercise achieves its intended purpose (Rowe and Frewer 2005), both of which are lacking in the majority of science outreach (Carleton-Hug and Hug 2010).”