Public and user participation in public service delivery: tensions in policy and practice

Social-scientific analysis of public-participation initiatives has proliferated in recent years. This review article discusses some key aspects of recent work. Firstly, it analyses some of the justifications put forward for public participation, drawing attention to differences and overlaps between rationales premised on democratic representation/representativeness and those based on more technocratic ideas about the knowledge that the public can offer. Secondly, it considers certain tensions in policy discourses on participation, focusing in particular on policy relating to the National Health Service and other British public services. Thirdly, it examines the challenges of putting a coherent vision for public participation into practice, noting the impediments that derive from the often-competing ideas about the remit of participation held by different groups of stakeholders. Finally, it analyses the gap between policy and practice, and the consequences of this for the prospects for the enactment of active citizenship through participation initiatives.

Hygiene and biosecurity: the language and politics of risk in an era of emerging infectious diseases

Infectious diseases, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and avian influenza, have recently been high on the agenda of policy makers and the public. Although hygiene and biosecurity are preferred options for disease management, policy makers have become increasingly aware of the critical role that communication assumes in protecting people during outbreaks and epidemics. This article makes the case for a language-based approach to understanding the public perception of disease. Health language research carried out by the authors, based on metaphor analysis and corpus linguistics, has shown that concepts of journeys, pathways, thresholds, boundaries and barriers have emerged as principal framing devices used by stakeholders to advocate a hygiene based risk and disease management. These framings provide a common ground for debate, but lead to quite different perceptions and practices. This in turn might be a barrier to global disease management in a modern world.