Discursive Representation

Dryzek, John S.; Niemeyer, Simon

doi:10.1017/s0003055408080325

Cited by 411 publications

(311 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

297

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, several institutional devices have been proposed in order to include and advance the interests of minorities and disadvantaged groups. In the past decade, however, the study of inclusion has increasingly taken a deliberative turn (Williams, 1998;Urbinati, 2000;Valadez, 2001;Dryzek and Niemeyer, 2008). Rather than focusing on formal and institutional means of inclusion (such as proportional representation, a minority veto, or re-districting), many deliberative approaches take an informal and dynamic view of inclusion * E-mail: pedrini@ipz.uzh.ch (see O'Flynn, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberative inclusion of minorities: patterns of reciprocity among linguistic groups in Switzerland

Pedrini

Bächtiger

Steenbergen

2012

Eur. Pol. Sci. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a model of deliberative inclusion, focusing on reciprocity in the interaction between structural minorities/disadvantaged groups and majorities/privileged groups. Our model, however, comes with a 'friendly amendment': we have put the 'burden of reciprocity' mainly on majorities and privileged groups. It is mainly their obligation to seriously listen and respond to the demands and arguments of minorities and disadvantaged groups and show a willingness to respect and accommodate these interests. Empirically, we apply our model to the interaction of linguistic groups in the Swiss parliament. We find a highly egalitarian, sometimes even minority-favoring mode of interaction between the German-speaking majority and linguistic minorities. The German-speaking majority seems to be willing to take the 'burden of reciprocity' when linguistic minorities' vital interests are concerned. Conversely, linguistic minorities are slightly more self-referential and adversarial under such conditions. We present a model of deliberative inclusion, focusing on reciprocity in the interaction between structural minorities/disadvantaged groups and majorities/privileged groups. Our model, however, comes with a 'friendly amendment': we have put the 'burden of reciprocity' mainly on majorities and privileged groups. It is mainly their obligation to seriously listen and respond to the demands and arguments of minorities and disadvantaged groups and show a willingness to respect and accommodate these interests. Empirically, we apply our model to the interaction of linguistic groups in the Swiss parliament. We find a highly egalitarian, sometimes even minority-favoring mode of interaction between the German-speaking majority and linguistic minorities. The German-speaking majority seems to be willing to take the 'burden of reciprocity' when linguistic minorities' vital interests are concerned. Conversely, linguistic minorities are slightly more self-referential and adversarial under such conditions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberative inclusion of minorities: patterns of reciprocity among linguistic groups in Switzerland

Pedrini

Bächtiger

Steenbergen

2012

Eur. Pol. Sci. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In an arrangement such as discursive chambers, the selection and representation of discourses becomes a crucial question, and in doing this, social scientists will play a crucial role (Dryzek and Niemeyer 2008). As shown in our investigation above, social scientists are also ascribed a crucial role in a democratised science, whether in a moderate or a radical form.…”

Section: Institutional Means For Enhanced Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…However, given the hierarchical power of discourses, discursive representation needs to be more formalised before it can be conceptualised as a process of discursive democratisation. Dryzek and Niemeyer (2008) suggest a way that discursive representation could be formalised by means of what they call chambers of discourses. Discursive representation (instead of traditional electoral representation) is beneficial at the global level because the number of discourses that need to be represented for any given issue is relatively small.…”

Section: Institutional Means For Enhanced Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberative democracy meets democratised science: a deliberative systems approach to global environmental governance

Berg

Lidskog

2017

Environmental Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main achievements of the debates on deliberative democracy and democratised science are investigated in order to analyse the reasons, meanings and prospects for a democratisation of global environmental policy. A deliberative systems approach, which emphasises the need to explore how processes in societal spheres interact to shape the deliberative qualities of the system as a whole, is adopted. Although science plays a key role in this, its potential to enhance deliberative capacity has hardly been addressed in deliberative theories. The democratisation of science has potential to contribute to the democratisation of global environmental policy, in that it also shapes the potential of deliberative arrangements in the policy sphere. Deliberative arrangements within the policy sphere may stimulate the democratisation of science to different degrees.

show abstract

“…In political theory, possibilities for improving democratic engagement in public policy are being opened up through: a) challenge to empiricism -coming from recent development in critical, post-empiricist and postmodern theories and hence disarming the pretense of objective, neutral and scientific policy analysis (Fischer 1998); b) taking discursive approach to policy analysis -discourse and social meaning internal to the very social systems we seek to research (Dryzek and Niemeyer 2008); and c) reconceptualizing policy analysts as engaged researchers and facilitators of democratic politics, thus integrating inquiry with social meanings and normative framings (Fals-Borda 1987;Ojha et al 2010). This means that policy analysis now is not just collecting facts from the viewpoints of experts, but more about unraveling the discourse and politics of meanings held by multiple actors concerned with the policy process (Hajer 2009).…”

Section: Challenges In Collaborative Policy Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Policy Learning be Catalyzed? Ban Chautari Experiment in Nepal's Forestry Sector

Ojha

Paudel²,

Khatri³

et al. 2013

J. Forest & Livelihood

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

:Over the past several years, technocratic approaches to forest policy have been challenged and more collaborative processes have been advocated. While these shifts have offered significant space for citizen engagement at local level -such as through community based forest management in Nepal's case -these have not taken roots at higher levels of policy making, especially at the level of formulating or revising legislations, or setting up a protected area. In this paper we critically review a collaborative experiment on catalyzing deliberative policy learning process in Nepal's forest sector. We examine how and to what extent such experimentation could overcome seven identified challenges to forest policy deliberation in Nepal. The experiment, which we named as Ban Chautari, involved three key strategies -conducting diagnostic research, empowering local communities to articulate their voices in deliberative forums, and then acting collaboratively across diverse institutional groups. Our examination of the Ban Chautari process focused around three research questions: a) How can policy learning be catalyzed?; b) How can actors with differentiated capacity and resources collaborate in the policy process?; and c) How can research processes be re-organized so as to contribute effectively to constantly shifting policy agendas and rapidly changing contexts? The experience of Ban Chautari has some good news to share with the wider public policy research community that conditions for collaborative policy learning is possible. And at the same time, it has generated evidence that warns the advocates of participatory and collaborative policy processes on the more subtle, and fundamental challenges that surround any attempts to foster collaborative learning.

show abstract

Discursive Representation

Cited by 411 publications

References 37 publications

Deliberative inclusion of minorities: patterns of reciprocity among linguistic groups in Switzerland

Deliberative inclusion of minorities: patterns of reciprocity among linguistic groups in Switzerland

Deliberative democracy meets democratised science: a deliberative systems approach to global environmental governance

Can Policy Learning be Catalyzed? Ban Chautari Experiment in Nepal's Forestry Sector

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About