logo    Journal of Public Deliberation

Journal Home Page
Aims & Scope
Editorial Board
Author Instructions
My Account


 Submit an Article


VOLUME 4 (2008), ISSUE 1, Essays <Previous Essay     Next Essay>

A Three-Stage Evaluation of a Deliberative Event on Climate Change and Transforming Energy

Peter B. Edwards, Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University
Richard Hindmarsh, Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University
Holly Mercer, Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University
Meghan Bond, Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University
Angela Rowland, Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University

SUGGESTED CITATION:
Peter B. Edwards, Richard Hindmarsh, Holly Mercer, Meghan Bond, and Angela Rowland (2008) "A Three-Stage Evaluation of a Deliberative Event on Climate Change and Transforming Energy," Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 4: No. 1, Article 6.
http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol4/iss1/art6

Download this article (239 K, PDF)

Tell a Colleague

Get Acrobat Reader

Printing Tip: Select the option
to 'print as image' in the Acrobat print
dialog to ensure the article prints as
it appears on screen.
Learn more...

Formulating deliberative evaluation tools indicates an important new field for the practitioner of deliberative design due to the increasing adoption of deliberative policy mechanisms by governmental and non-governmental organisations. Evaluation tools aid the design, effectiveness and deliberative integrity and legitimacy of these mechanisms. Relatively few studies though have reflected on how to conduct evaluation. Here, we report on our formulation of a three-stage approach to deliberative evaluation, which we applied in an independent evaluation of a Courageous Conversation on Climate Change and Transforming Energy (March 2007), designed by the Ethos Foundation, Queensland, Australia. Overall, we found our schema successful in identifying both the positives and negatives of the design, of what could be applauded and what needed revision. More broadly, we advance that it offers a useful approach for practitioners to develop further, especially in getting the balance right on evaluating process and outputs, to which we have added inputs in reflection of deliberative design advances.


Readers' Reactions

No readers' reactions have been posted for this article. To submit one, copy the URL for this article (http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol4/iss1/art6) and click here.

Content Notification

Receive notification of articles.

Join our email notification list


Archives
 


Search:

Advanced Search
MY ACCOUNT  | LOG OUT |
Powered by bepress.