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

IF 4.3 2区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Selen A. Ercan, C. Hendriks, John Boswell
{"title":"Studying public deliberation after the systemic turn: the crucial role for interpretive research","authors":"Selen A. Ercan, C. Hendriks, John Boswell","doi":"10.1332/030557315X14502713105886","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":47631,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Politics","volume":"46 1","pages":"195-212"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"54","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557315X14502713105886","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 54

Abstract

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.
研究系统转向后的公共审议:解释性研究的关键作用
最近向审议系统方法的转变表明,将公共审议理解为发生在各种空间中的交流活动。虽然在理论上很有吸引力,但审议系统方法为经验社会科学家提出了一些方法论问题。例如,如何识别协商系统内的多个交流场所,如何研究不同场所之间的联系,以及如何评估更广泛的背景对协商论坛和协商系统的影响?通过对多个案例的研究,本文认为解释性研究方法非常适合于研究复杂审议制度的模糊性、动态性和政治性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
12.80%
发文量
32
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信