This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gregory, R. Articles by McDaniels, T. Search for Related Content

Acceptable Input: Using Decision Analysis to Guide Public Policy Deliberations

Decision Research, 1160 Devina Drive, RR2 Site 52 Comp 4, Galiano, British Columbia, Canada V0N 1P0
Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, 6333 Memorial Road, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z2
rgregory{at}interchange.ubc.ca
baruchf{at}andrew.cmu.edu
timmcd{at}interchange.ubc.cq

Multiparty deliberative processes have become a popular way to increase public participation in public policy choices. Their legitimacy depends on participants' ability, first, to understand the issues facing them and, then, to form and express their own positions on them. These tasks pose significant cognitive and emotional challenges. This paper argues that decision analysis, informed by behavioral decision research, offers procedures and standards for creating responsible deliberative processes. These involve (a) formal analysis of decisions, identifying the kernel of most relevant information, (b) communication procedures, recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of lay understanding, and (c) interactive elicitation methods, helping individuals to articulate the implications of their values for specific settings. A construct validity criterion assesses the extent to which the resulting valuations are properly sensitive to decision features. Feasible extensions of traditional decision analysis create opportunities to formalize the aspirations of participants and ensure that the intellectual content of deliberative processes is worthy of the political hopes vested in them.

Key Words: deliberation; risk management; behavioral research; decision analysis; public participation
History: Received on July 16, 2004. Accepted on May 6, 2005.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. R. Keller From the Editor... Decision Analysis, September 1, 2009; 6(3): 121 - 123. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Ewing and E. Baker Development of a Green Building Decision Support Tool: A Collaborative Process Decision Analysis, September 1, 2009; 6(3): 172 - 185. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. R. Keller From the Editor... Decision Analysis, March 1, 2009; 6(1): 1 - 3. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. R. Keller and K. M. Kophazi From the Editors... Decision Analysis, June 1, 2008; 5(2): 57 - 59. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. R. Keller, M. Baucells, K. F. McCardle, G. S. Parnell, and A. Salo From the Editors... Decision Analysis, December 1, 2007; 4(4): 173 - 175. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. French, D. Rios Insua, and F. Ruggeri e-Participation and Decision Analysis Decision Analysis, December 1, 2007; 4(4): 211 - 226. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. N. Kleinmuntz and G. Wu From the Special Issue Editors... Special Issue on Psychology and Decision Analysis Decision Analysis, September 1, 2006; 3(3): 121 - 123. [Abstract] [PDF]