How Public Engagement Became a Core Part of the House of Commons Select Committees

• Walker, Aileen ^[3] ; Jurczak, Naomi ^[4] ; Bochel, Catherine ^[1] ; Leston-Bandeira, Cristina ^[2]
  1. [1] University of Lincoln

     University of Lincoln

     Lincoln District, Reino Unido

     
  2. [2] University of Leeds

     University of Leeds

     Reino Unido

     
  3. [3] Global Governance Partners, London, UK
  4. [4] House of Commons, London, UK

  Mostrar afiliaciones +
• Localización: Parliamentary affairs: A journal of representative politics, ISSN 0031-2290, Vol. 72, Nº 4, 2019 (Ejemplar dedicado a: 40 years of Departmental Select Committees in the House of Commons), págs. 965-986
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.1093/pa/gsz031
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Dialnet Métricas: 2 Citas
• Resumen

  • This article explores the role of public engagement by select committees of the House of Commons. It shows that committees’ public engagement activity has been transformed since 1979, when departmental select committees were introduced. We start by outlining the different elements of public engagement, showing that it entails a wide range of types of activity from information about committees’ activity to opportunities through which citizens can shape parliamentary decisions. We then proceed to outline how public engagement has become a core activity of select committees in the House of Commons. We show developments taking place within all elements of public engagement. Through the use of case studies, we illustrate specific innovations that have led towards more agile and inclusive ways to consult and involve the public into committees’ activities. We finish by identifying some of the challenges still present, namely the need to reach new and more varied audiences.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Arnstein, (1969), Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, pp. 216, 10.1080/01944366908977225
  • Barnett, (1992), Parliamentary Affairs, 45, pp. 409, 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pa.a052368
  • Bochel, (2016), The Journal of Legislative Studies, 22, pp. 368, 10.1080/13572334.2016.1202644
  • Clarke, (2018), The Good Politician – Folk Theories, Political Interaction and the Rise of Anti-Politics, 10.1017/9781108641357
  • Coleman, (2014), Media, Culture & Society, 36, pp. 826, 10.1177/0163443714536074
  • D’Arcy, (2018), Exploring Parliament, pp. 207
  • Davidson, (2011), British Politics, 6, pp. 155, 10.1057/bp.2011.3
  • Dryzek, (2002), Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations, 10.1093/019925043X.001.0001
  • Goodwin, (2018), Exploring Parliament, pp. 296
  • Hendricks, (2019), Government and Opposition, 54, pp. 25, 10.1017/gov.2017.20
  • Kubala, (2011), Parliamentary Affairs, 64, pp. 694, 10.1093/pa/gsr014
  • Leston-Bandeira, (2014), Parliamentary Affairs, 67, pp. 415, 10.1093/pa/gss050
  • Leston-Bandeira, (2018), Exploring Parliament, pp. 308, 10.1093/hepl/9780198788430.001.0001
  • Norris, (2011), Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited, 10.1017/CBO9780511973383
  • Pateman, (1975), Participation and Democratic Theory
  • Rowe, (2005), Science, Technology and Human Values, 30, pp. 251, 10.1177/0162243904271724
  • Shein, (2015), Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), 24, pp. 943, 10.1177/0963662515602848
  • Stirbu, (2018), The Journal of Legislative Studies, 24, pp. 373, 10.1080/13572334.2018.1516606
  • Walker, (2012), Parliamentary Affairs, 65, pp. 270, 10.1093/pa/gsr054