Think tank 2.0 for deliberative policy analysis

Abstract

Deliberative policy analysis (DPA) is one of the significant developments in the trend of post-positivist policy analysis. However, the question of how to practice is a thorny issue hindering its development and dissemination. More particularly, the organizational aspect for the practice of DPA has never been well explored. Taking an organizational perspective, this article proposes a novel concept of ''think tank 2.0'' (TT2.0), which is designed to host deliberative analysts and to integrate the policy inquiry with public participation, deliberation, and dispute resolution. The article begins with a hypothetical example to showcase what DPA means and how it works. The following section presents a brief review of the principles of DPA, and a call for developing DPA institutes on account of the complexity of conducting deliberative analysis. Next, the article brings the conceptual framework of TT2.0 and its two models: an external model describing the relations among TT2.0 and other policy actors and an internal model structuring the roles within a TT2.0 and their division of labor. Finally, the article discusses some varieties of TT2.0 in operation and suggests several strategies for devising and operating TT2.0.

Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy

“…I refer to the book for further details. ⁴ Li's Laboratory of Deliberative Policy Analysis in Beijing-in which citizens and experts engage in guided deliberation about contested issues in a kind of citizen jury-type arrangement, the results of which are subsequently presented to the authorities-is a good example of this approach (Li 2015).…”

Getting at Equality: Research Methods Informed by the Lessons of Intersectionality

“…First, deliberative dialogue focuses on a problem that catalyzes the community to undertake an inquiry (Moses, Saenz, & Farley, 2015;Pfeil, 2013;Shields, 2003, p. 511, cited in Escobar, 2014. Second, a skilled facilitator who is not a stakeholder (Lavis et al, 2014;Li, 2015) facilitates discussion in a way that ensures equal opportunities to express views and perspectives (Pfeil, 2013). Third, ground rules are set for deliberation that encourage equal participation by all by requiring respectful, compassionate, active listening that encourages deeper understanding (Lavis et al, 2014;Moses et al, 2015, p. 197;Pfeil, 2013, p. 126).…”

Deliberation on the risks of nanoscale materials: learning from the partnership between environmental NGO EDF and chemical company DuPont

“…Deliberative Policy Analysis (DPA), as a theoretical and empirical field of study, focuses on the shift from government to governance (Hajer and Wagenaar 2003), with dialogue, deliberation and negotiation among stakeholders on concrete political and societal issues as major tools of analysis (Li 2015).…”

“…In line with DPA, this paper examines a deliberative practice on a concrete political and societal issue, namely the question how to assess and regulate potential health and environmental risks of newly emerging technologies, in this case, engineered nanoscale materials. But while DPA primarily focuses on the role of public agencies in deliberative practices (Ansell 2011c;Li 2015;, this paper extends analysis of deliberative platforms to industry-civil society deliberations. More in particular, the paper examines deliberation processes that took place within a three-year bilateral partnership between a nongovernmental organization, Environmental Defense Fund and a large multinational chemical company, DuPont, to develop a joint risk framework for engineered nanoscale materials.…”