Carolyn M. Hendriks

Integrated Deliberation: Reconciling Civil Society's Dual Role in Deliberative Democracy

Among the growing literature on deliberative democracy there are two diverging streams of thought, each implying a different role for civil society. Micro deliberative theorists, with their focus on the procedural conditions for structured fora, encourage civil society to engage in collaborative practices, usually with the state. In contrast, macro deliberative democrats, who are interested in the messy and informal deliberation in the public sphere, advocate that civil society should work discursively outside and against the state. This article explores some of the implications of these conflicting roles, taking into account two observations from deliberative practice: first, that all micro deliberative fora are surrounded and impacted by their macro discursive context, and second, that some actors in civil society are more willing and capable of deliberating than others. To conceive of deliberative democracy as an entirely micro or macro enterprise is not only unrealistic, but potentially exclusive. The article advocates for a more viable and inclusive deliberative theory; one that integrates all kinds of deliberation from the micro to the macro. To this end, public deliberation is best conceptualised as an activity occurring in a range of discursive spheres that collectively engage a diversity of civil society actors.

Contextualizing Reflexive Governance: the Politics of Dutch Transitions to Sustainability

Abstract How does steering for sustainability work within the world of contemporary politics, where roles are increasingly ambiguous and power dispersed? This paper explores this question empirically by studying the practice of reflexive governance—a mode of steering that encourages actors to scrutinize and reconsider their underlying assumptions, institutional arrangements and practices. The practice of reflexive governance has been conceptualized in various ways: as a strategic process of opening up and closing down, as a state-led activity of facilitating socio-technological transitions, and as a mode of network co-ordination to promote system innovation. What all these accounts underplay is the political context of reflexive processes, and the politics that they generate. This paper offers an alternative conceptualization of reflexive governance that situates sites of reflexivity within a broader discursive system composed of multiple arenas, actors and forms of political communication. Applying this framework to a Dutch case study reveals a host of struggles involved in enacting reflexive governance, particularly as actors try to reconcile the demands of reflexivity (being open, self-critical and creative) with the demands of their existing political world (closed preferences, agenda driven, control). The analysis sheds light on the work—and indeed politics—involved in legitimizing more reflexive modes of governing for sustainability.

Institutions of Deliberative Democratic Processes and Interest Groups: Roles, Tensions and Incentives

There are inherent tensions between traditional, more pluralist forms of public participation and new deliberative democratic processes, such as citizens’ juries. These innovative processes, known collectively as citizens’ forums, challenge existing roles and power relationships between interest groups and the state. Instead of having key access to the policy stage, interest groups are required to be ‘bystanders’, ‘information providers’, and ultimately ‘process legitimisers’. With such a radical shift in roles and power structure, there are few apparent reasons why interest groups would want to participate in such deliberative processes. In some cases, to the detriment of the process, they decide not to.

When the Forum Meets Interest Politics: Strategic Uses of Public Deliberation

This article explores the interface between public deliberation and interest politics. It empirically examines how and when actors with vested interests support and oppose processes of direct citizen deliberation, such as citizens’ juries. An analysis of four cases finds that interest groups and activists respond to citizen deliberation in a variety of ways from cooperative engagement to disruptive disengagement. The research suggests that partisan actors are most likely to support citizens’ forums when the ideational and political context offers instrumental reasons to go public. The article explores what this strategic approach to public deliberation implies for the practice and theory of deliberative democracy.

Deliberative Governance in the Context of Power

Abstract Deliberative forms of governance are on the rise worldwide as governments, businesses and not-for-profit organisations seek to engage with their constituents. Empirical research on these deliberative experiments is beginning to emerge; with most studies focussing on how well deliberative practice lives up the ideals of deliberative democracy. Little, however, is known about how the practice of deliberative governance negotiates and accommodates different forms of power prevalent in the policy process. This is the subject of this special issue. This introductory piece provides an overview of how theories of deliberative democracy relate to both coercive (‘power-over’) and generative forms of power (‘power-with’). Drawing on insights from the empirical research in this special issue, the paper argues that power is not necessarily a negative force for public deliberation. Indeed coercive forms of power may be needed by some marginalized groups to push their issue onto the agenda, while more generative forms of power can inspire actors to engage in collective thinking.

Coupling citizens and elites in deliberative systems: The role of institutional design

A significant shortcoming in contemporary deliberative systems is that citizens are disconnected from various elite sites of public deliberation. This article explores the concept of ‘coupling’ as a means to better link citizens and elites in deliberative systems. The notion of ‘designed coupling’ is developed to describe institutional mechanisms for linking otherwise disconnected deliberative sites. To consider whether it is possible and indeed desirable to use institutional design to couple different sites in a deliberative system, the article draws on insights from a case study in which a mini-public was formally integrated into a legislative committee. The empirical study finds that it is not only feasible to couple mini-publics to legislative committees, but when combined, the democratic and deliberative capacity of both institutions can be strengthened. To be effective, ‘designed coupling’ requires more than establishing institutional connections; it also requires that actors to step outside their comfort zone to build new relationships and engage in new communicative spaces with different sets of ideas, actors and rules. This can be facilitated by institutional design, but it also requires leaders and champions who are well-placed to encourage actors to think differently.

Praxis Stories: Experiencing Interpretive Policy Research

Abstract This paper is a reflective and experiential piece on practising interpretive policy research — a meaning focus sed approach to studying politics. Much effort in recent years has gone into defining and defending interpretive methods against positivist approaches in political science. Yet surprisingly little is known about how researchers actually ‘interpret’ the political world, and what issues they face in practice. This paper follows the journey of an interpretive project and reflects on a series of methodological issues it posed. The discussion reveals that interpretive methods can be demanding on researchers: they needto immerse themselves in policy practice, engage iteratively, embrace uncertainty, and work with multiple interpretations. To encourage learning and improve the practice of interpretive research in political science, this paper calls on scholars to be more reflexive about what they do by sharing their research experiences.

Studying public deliberation after the systemic turn: the crucial role for interpretive research

The recent shift towards a deliberative systems approach suggests understanding public deliberation as a communicative activity occurring in a diversity of spaces. While theoretically attractive, the deliberative systems approach raises a number of methodological questions for empirical social scientists. For example, how to identify multiple communicative sites within a deliberative system, how to study connections between different sites, and how to assess the impact of the broader context on deliberative forums and systems? Drawing on multiple case studies, this article argues that interpretive research methods are well-suited to studying the ambiguities, dynamics and politics of complex deliberative systems.

Twelve Key Findings in Deliberative Democracy Research

This essay reflects on the development of the field of deliberative democracy by discussing twelve key findings that capture a number of resolved issues in normative theory, conceptual clarification, and associated empirical results. We argue that these findings deserve to be more widely recognized and viewed as a foundation for future practice and research. We draw on our own research and that of others in the field.

The democratic challenges and potential of localism: insights from deliberative democracy

This article considers the democratic challenges and potential of localism by drawing on insights from the theory and practice of deliberative democracy. On a conceptual level, the ideas embedded in localism and deliberative democracy share much in common, particularly the democratic goal of engaging citizens in decisions that affect them. Despite such commonalities, however, there has been limited conversation between relevant literatures. The article considers four democratic challenges facing localism and offers a response from a systems perspective of deliberative democracy. It argues that, for localism to realise its democratic potential, new participatory spaces are required and the design of these spaces matters. Beyond structured participatory forums, local democracy also needs an active and vibrant public sphere that promotes multiple forms of democratic expression. This requires taking seriously the democratic contributions of local associations and social movements. Finally, the article argues that, to fulfil its democratic potential, localism needs to encourage greater democratic and political connectivity between participatory forums and the broader public sphere.