Listening to the Public – Enacting Power: Citizen Access, Standing and Influence in Public Participation Discourses

References

• Ångman, E. (2013). Was this just for show? Discursive opening and closure in a public participatory process. Environmental Communication, 7, 409–426. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2013.804429
   Google Scholar
• Arcadis-Atecma. (2009). Final report: Technical assessment of the Portuguese National Programme for Dams with High Hydropower Potential (PNBEPH) Phase I and II. European Commission/DG Environment Framework contract No. 07.0307/2008/ENV.A2/FRA/ 0020 – Lot 2 Project – 11/004766 07/07/2009.
   Google Scholar
• Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216–224. doi: 10.1080/01944366908977225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barry, J., & Ellis, G. (2011). Beyond consensus? Agonism, republicanism and a low carbon future. In P. Devine-Wright (Ed.), Renewable energy and the public: From NIMBY to participation (pp. 30–42). London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Beierle, T. C., & Cayford, J. (2002). Democracy in practice: Public participation in environmental decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
   Google Scholar
• Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2003). Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13, 429–448. doi: 10.1093/logcom/13.3.429
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, K., & Schultz, S. (2010). ‘ … a certain amount of engineering involved’: Constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 403–419. doi: 10.1177/0963662509347814
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchy, M., Ross, H., & Proctor, W. (2000). Enhancing information based on participatory approaches in Australian natural resource management. Canberra: The Australian National University.
   Google Scholar
• Carvalho, A. (2010). Media(ted) discourses and climate change: A focus on political subjectivity and (dis)engagement. WIREs Climate Change, 1(2), 172–179. doi: 10.1002/wcc.13
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coenen, F. (Ed.). (2010). Public participation and better environmental decisions: The promise and limits of participatory processes for the quality of environmentally related decision-making. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Conselho Nacional do Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Sustentável (CNADS). (2007) Reflexão Preliminar sobre o ProgramaNacional de Barragens com Elevado Potencial Hídrico. Retrieved December 2, 2013, from http://www.cnads.pt/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=84&Itemid=84
   Google Scholar
• Cotton, M., & Devine-Wright, P. (2012). Making electricity networks ‘visible’: Industry actor representations of ‘publics’ and public engagement in infrastructure planning. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 17–35. doi: 10.1177/0963662510362658
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, S. R. (2011). The rules of engagement: Power and interaction in dialogue events. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 65–79. doi: 10.1177/0963662511399685
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Degelsegger, A., & Torgersen, H. (2011). Participatory paternalism: Citizens’ conferences in Austrian technology governance. Science and Public Policy, 38, 391–402. doi: 10.3152/030234211X12924093660679
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietz, T., & Stern, P. C. (Eds.). (2008). Public participation in environmental assessment and decision-making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. (1994). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy and political science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S., & Tucker, A. (2008). Deliberative innovation to different effect: Consensus conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States. Public Administration Review, 68, 864–876. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00928.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dufrasne, M., & Patriarche, G. (2011). Applying genre theory to citizen participation in public policy making: Theoretical perspectives on participatory genres. Communication Management Quarterly, 21, 61–86.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. (1990). Language and power. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (2006). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258–284). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Farkas, K. R. H. (2013). Citizen (in)action: The limits of civic discourse in city council meetings. Critical Discourse Studies, 10, 81–98. doi: 10.1080/17405904.2012.736702
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felt, U., & Fochler, M. (2010). Machineries for making publics. Inscribing and de-scribing publics in public engagement. Minerva, 48, 219–238. doi: 10.1007/s11024-010-9155-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 15, 226–243. doi: 10.1177/016224399001500204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. (2009). Democracy and expertise: Reorienting policy inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F., & Forrester, J. (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy and planning practice: Toward a critical pragmatism. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (Eds.). (1979). Language and control. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul Goffman.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, M. (2005). Citizens, experts and technoscience: A case study of ‘GM Nation? The Public Debate’ (Doctoral dissertation). Cardiff University.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, M. (2009). Drama, talk, and emotion: Omitted aspects of public participation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 34, 139–161. doi: 10.1177/0162243907309632
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hausendorf, H., & Bora, A. (Eds.). (2006). Analysing citizenship talk: Social positioning in political and legal decision-making processes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Instituto da Água, IP., Direcção Geral de Energia e Geologia, & Redes Energéticas Nacionais. (2007). Programa Nacional de Barragens com Elevado Potencial Hidroeléctrico (PNBEPH): Memória. Retrieved October 10, 2015, from http://rioslivresgeota.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/plano_barragens_memoria_final1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S., & Tutton, R. (2007). Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public discourse. Social Studies of Science, 37, 385–411. doi: 10.1177/0306312706068492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & O'Neill Susel, B. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public. Public Administration Review, 58, 317–326. doi: 10.2307/977561
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Melo, J. J. (2012, May). Not sustainable: The sad business of Portuguese new dams. Paper presented at the 32nd annual conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment, Porto.
   Google Scholar
• Michael, M. (2009). Publics performing publics: Of PiGs, PiPs and politics. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 617–631. doi: 10.1177/0963662508098581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, A. P., Lassen, J., & Sandøe, P. (2011). Public participation: Democratic ideal or pragmatic tool? The cases of GM foods and functional foods. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 163–178. doi: 10.1177/0963662509336713
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pepermans, Y., & Loots, I. (2013). Wind farm struggles in Flanders fields: A sociological perspective. Energy Policy, 59, 321–328. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, L. (2011). The promise of dialogue: The dialogic turn in the production and communication of knowledge. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Powel, M. C., & Colin, M. (2009). Participatory paradoxes: Facilitating citizen engagement in science and technology from the top-down? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 29(4), 325–342. doi: 10.1177/0270467609336308
   Google Scholar
• Scheer, A. M., & Höppner, K. (2010). The public consultation to the UK climate change act 2008: A critical analysis. Climate Policy, 10, 261–276. doi: 10.3763/cpol.2009.0029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarze, S. (2004). Public participation and (failed) legitimation: The case of forest service rhetorics in the Boundary Waters Canoe area. In S. P. Depoe, J. W. Delicath, & M.-F. A. Elsenbeer (Eds.), Communication and public participation in environmental decision making (pp. 137–156). Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Senecah, S. (2004). The trinity of voice: The role of practical theory in planning and evaluating the effectiveness of environmental participatory processes. In S. P. Depoe, J. W. Delicath, & M.-F. A. Elsenbeer (Eds.), Communication and Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making (pp. 13–33). Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shipley, R., & Utz, S. (2012). Making it count: A review of the value and techniques for public consultation. Journal of Planning Literature, 27(1), 22–42. doi: 10.1177/0885412211413133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stirling, A. (2008). ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33, 262–294. doi: 10.1177/0162243907311265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West, W. F. (2004). Formal procedures, informal processes, accountability, and responsiveness in bureaucratic policy making: An institutional policy analysis. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 66–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00347.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winkel, G., & Sotirov, M. (2011). An obituary for national forest programmes? Analyzing and learning from the strategic use of ‘new modes of governance’ in Bulgaria and Germany. Forest Policy and Economics, 13, 143–154. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2010.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar