'Recruitment', 'composition', and 'mandate' issues in deliverative processes: should we focus on arguments rather than individuals?

Ben Davies, K. Blackstock, F. Rauschmayer

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    40 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Public participation in environmental decisionmaking has become an accepted part of Western societies over the last three decades. Whereas on a simple level every democratic process based on aggregating individual preferences contains an element of public participation, the literature on discursive democracy emphasises instead a more subtle, rich, and intense social process of deliberation. In this model, the spectrum of understandings, interests, and values expressed in different discourses is explored in detail by participants before a decision is reached. Although within an idealised model of discursive democracy such deliberations would involve every member of society potentially affected by the issue under discussion, a range of constraints mean that in practice this ideal model can only be approximated by discussions held in various forms of 'minipublics', which contain in most cases only a tiny proportion of the relevant community-for example, citizens' juries and consensus conferences. We identify three problem areas concerning the choice of participants in such 'minipublics', which we call the 'recruitment problem' (how individual participants are chosen to take part), the 'composition problem' (what the final composition of the minipublic is), and the,mandate problem' (what role each of the participants assumes within the process). We suggest that most studies have not explicitly distinguished these elements, and consequently the rationale for why the results of such processes should be considered legitimate in either an advisory or a decisionmaking capacity is often unclear. We review the limitations of traditional recruitment methods and suggest a new alternative we consider appropriate for discursive processes-utilising Q methodology as a step in developing a purposive sampling frame for the recruitment phase. Although this approach is not without problems, we suggest that it could potentially offer a better basis on which to address the recruitment problem for those processes seeking to approximate discursively democratic ideals.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)599-615
    Number of pages16
    JournalEnvironment and Planning C: Government and Policy
    Volume23
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2005

    Keywords

    • DEMOCRATIC DELIBERATION
    • LEGITIMACY

    Cite this

    'Recruitment', 'composition', and 'mandate' issues in deliverative processes: should we focus on arguments rather than individuals? / Davies, Ben; Blackstock, K.; Rauschmayer, F.

    In: Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 23, 2005, p. 599-615.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{67166b33f16143679e34fe3aab44a5d5,
    title = "'Recruitment', 'composition', and 'mandate' issues in deliverative processes: should we focus on arguments rather than individuals?",
    abstract = "Public participation in environmental decisionmaking has become an accepted part of Western societies over the last three decades. Whereas on a simple level every democratic process based on aggregating individual preferences contains an element of public participation, the literature on discursive democracy emphasises instead a more subtle, rich, and intense social process of deliberation. In this model, the spectrum of understandings, interests, and values expressed in different discourses is explored in detail by participants before a decision is reached. Although within an idealised model of discursive democracy such deliberations would involve every member of society potentially affected by the issue under discussion, a range of constraints mean that in practice this ideal model can only be approximated by discussions held in various forms of 'minipublics', which contain in most cases only a tiny proportion of the relevant community-for example, citizens' juries and consensus conferences. We identify three problem areas concerning the choice of participants in such 'minipublics', which we call the 'recruitment problem' (how individual participants are chosen to take part), the 'composition problem' (what the final composition of the minipublic is), and the,mandate problem' (what role each of the participants assumes within the process). We suggest that most studies have not explicitly distinguished these elements, and consequently the rationale for why the results of such processes should be considered legitimate in either an advisory or a decisionmaking capacity is often unclear. We review the limitations of traditional recruitment methods and suggest a new alternative we consider appropriate for discursive processes-utilising Q methodology as a step in developing a purposive sampling frame for the recruitment phase. Although this approach is not without problems, we suggest that it could potentially offer a better basis on which to address the recruitment problem for those processes seeking to approximate discursively democratic ideals.",
    keywords = "DEMOCRATIC DELIBERATION, LEGITIMACY",
    author = "Ben Davies and K. Blackstock and F. Rauschmayer",
    year = "2005",
    doi = "10.1068/C04112S",
    language = "English",
    volume = "23",
    pages = "599--615",
    journal = "Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy",
    issn = "0263-774X",
    publisher = "Pion Ltd.",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - 'Recruitment', 'composition', and 'mandate' issues in deliverative processes: should we focus on arguments rather than individuals?

    AU - Davies, Ben

    AU - Blackstock, K.

    AU - Rauschmayer, F.

    PY - 2005

    Y1 - 2005

    N2 - Public participation in environmental decisionmaking has become an accepted part of Western societies over the last three decades. Whereas on a simple level every democratic process based on aggregating individual preferences contains an element of public participation, the literature on discursive democracy emphasises instead a more subtle, rich, and intense social process of deliberation. In this model, the spectrum of understandings, interests, and values expressed in different discourses is explored in detail by participants before a decision is reached. Although within an idealised model of discursive democracy such deliberations would involve every member of society potentially affected by the issue under discussion, a range of constraints mean that in practice this ideal model can only be approximated by discussions held in various forms of 'minipublics', which contain in most cases only a tiny proportion of the relevant community-for example, citizens' juries and consensus conferences. We identify three problem areas concerning the choice of participants in such 'minipublics', which we call the 'recruitment problem' (how individual participants are chosen to take part), the 'composition problem' (what the final composition of the minipublic is), and the,mandate problem' (what role each of the participants assumes within the process). We suggest that most studies have not explicitly distinguished these elements, and consequently the rationale for why the results of such processes should be considered legitimate in either an advisory or a decisionmaking capacity is often unclear. We review the limitations of traditional recruitment methods and suggest a new alternative we consider appropriate for discursive processes-utilising Q methodology as a step in developing a purposive sampling frame for the recruitment phase. Although this approach is not without problems, we suggest that it could potentially offer a better basis on which to address the recruitment problem for those processes seeking to approximate discursively democratic ideals.

    AB - Public participation in environmental decisionmaking has become an accepted part of Western societies over the last three decades. Whereas on a simple level every democratic process based on aggregating individual preferences contains an element of public participation, the literature on discursive democracy emphasises instead a more subtle, rich, and intense social process of deliberation. In this model, the spectrum of understandings, interests, and values expressed in different discourses is explored in detail by participants before a decision is reached. Although within an idealised model of discursive democracy such deliberations would involve every member of society potentially affected by the issue under discussion, a range of constraints mean that in practice this ideal model can only be approximated by discussions held in various forms of 'minipublics', which contain in most cases only a tiny proportion of the relevant community-for example, citizens' juries and consensus conferences. We identify three problem areas concerning the choice of participants in such 'minipublics', which we call the 'recruitment problem' (how individual participants are chosen to take part), the 'composition problem' (what the final composition of the minipublic is), and the,mandate problem' (what role each of the participants assumes within the process). We suggest that most studies have not explicitly distinguished these elements, and consequently the rationale for why the results of such processes should be considered legitimate in either an advisory or a decisionmaking capacity is often unclear. We review the limitations of traditional recruitment methods and suggest a new alternative we consider appropriate for discursive processes-utilising Q methodology as a step in developing a purposive sampling frame for the recruitment phase. Although this approach is not without problems, we suggest that it could potentially offer a better basis on which to address the recruitment problem for those processes seeking to approximate discursively democratic ideals.

    KW - DEMOCRATIC DELIBERATION

    KW - LEGITIMACY

    U2 - 10.1068/C04112S

    DO - 10.1068/C04112S

    M3 - Article

    VL - 23

    SP - 599

    EP - 615

    JO - Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy

    JF - Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy

    SN - 0263-774X

    ER -