I received the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy (NCCHPP)’s newsletter this week. To my pleasant surprise, it contained some interesting pieces about deliberative processes. After downloading and reviewing the documents, (Deliberative Processes - Fact Sheet & Deliberative Processes - Inventory of Resources) I was further surprised that among the resources consulted was the work of Michel Callon and the Loka Institute.
What really surprises me however, is how cautious the Canadian government and its agencies are with broadly implementing and maintaining good deliberative practices. It already has good examples that can be scaled up.
In 1998, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) launched the Community University Research Alliance (CURA) program - based on deliberative processes found in Science Shops in Europe, Consensus Conferences in Denmark, Services aux Collectivites of Quebec universities, and a history of social enterprise dating back to the 1920s. It is a successful and standardized program in a portfolio of programs.
It influenced the Community Alliances for Health Research (CAHR) program at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) in 1999. This program was considered transitional, was abandoned, and there is nothing of the type currently funded at CIHR. It also influenced the creation of the PICRI - Partenariat Institutions Citoyens pour la Recherche et pour l’Innovation initiated by the government of Ile de France. The PICRI program goes beyond where the CURA program initiated by bringing together a broader assortment of actors and interests in the deliberative processes associated with science and technology.
With regard to health and healthcare, the Community-Campus for Health Partnerships (CCPH) was founded in 1996. This growing “network of over 1,800 communities and campuses across North America and increasingly the world that are collaborating to promote health through service-learning, community-based participatory research, broad-based coalitions and other partnership strategies. These partnerships are powerful tools for improving higher education, civic engagement and the overall health of communities” has been led by Dr. Sarena Seifer and has been instrumental in bringing diverse people together to work through how to work together.
These are only a few of the examples of work that has been mobilizing community knowledge via deliberative process mechanisms for over the past decade plus.
I applaud the NCCHPP for producing these reports. I hope and desire that it promotes the methods described. It is long past due and as Ralph Klein, former Premier of Alberta, once said - “the role of a politician is to find the parade and get in front”. The parade of deliberation relating to health and healthcare is decades long. People of Canada, we need to tell our politicians that deliberative processes are not just good for democratic governance - they are the basis of democratic government. So who wants to get in front?
http://bit.ly/11u0xJ
What really surprises me however, is how cautious the Canadian government and its agencies are with broadly implementing and maintaining good deliberative practices. It already has good examples that can be scaled up.
In 1998, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) launched the Community University Research Alliance (CURA) program - based on deliberative processes found in Science Shops in Europe, Consensus Conferences in Denmark, Services aux Collectivites of Quebec universities, and a history of social enterprise dating back to the 1920s. It is a successful and standardized program in a portfolio of programs.
It influenced the Community Alliances for Health Research (CAHR) program at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) in 1999. This program was considered transitional, was abandoned, and there is nothing of the type currently funded at CIHR. It also influenced the creation of the PICRI - Partenariat Institutions Citoyens pour la Recherche et pour l’Innovation initiated by the government of Ile de France. The PICRI program goes beyond where the CURA program initiated by bringing together a broader assortment of actors and interests in the deliberative processes associated with science and technology.
With regard to health and healthcare, the Community-Campus for Health Partnerships (CCPH) was founded in 1996. This growing “network of over 1,800 communities and campuses across North America and increasingly the world that are collaborating to promote health through service-learning, community-based participatory research, broad-based coalitions and other partnership strategies. These partnerships are powerful tools for improving higher education, civic engagement and the overall health of communities” has been led by Dr. Sarena Seifer and has been instrumental in bringing diverse people together to work through how to work together.
These are only a few of the examples of work that has been mobilizing community knowledge via deliberative process mechanisms for over the past decade plus.
I applaud the NCCHPP for producing these reports. I hope and desire that it promotes the methods described. It is long past due and as Ralph Klein, former Premier of Alberta, once said - “the role of a politician is to find the parade and get in front”. The parade of deliberation relating to health and healthcare is decades long. People of Canada, we need to tell our politicians that deliberative processes are not just good for democratic governance - they are the basis of democratic government. So who wants to get in front?
http://bit.ly/11u0xJ
To cite:
MLA format
Levesque, Peter, "The long road of deliberative processes." Weblog Entry. Knowledge Mobilization Works Blog. Posted October 18, 2009. Accessed (enter date). http://bit.ly/11u0xJ
APA format
Levesque, P. The long road of deliberative processes. Retrieved (enter date) from http://www.knowledgemobilization.net (http://bit.ly/11u0xJ)
No comments:
Post a Comment