Empirical turn in deliberative democracy
For the past two days I was in Canberra to attend my first seminar as a PhD student. It was organised by the Centre for Deliberative Democracy in the Research School of Social Sciences at Australia National University. The centre is headed by Professor John Dryzek, the doyen of deliberative democrats. The intent of the seminar was to bring together a diverse group to present papers to each other about the theory and practice of deliberative democracy. We heard perspectives of political philosophy, parliamentary analysis, economics, social psychology, advocacy, argument mapping and facilitative practice. Attendees also specialised in linguistics, education (me) and application settings like resource management, wind farms and local government. The thirty attendees came from all corners of Australia. My newDemocracy Project team colleagues gave a presentation which sparked both interest and scepticism. I had also assisted my supervisor in her co-authorship of a paper about the commercialisation and commodification of deliberative practice. Appropriately, the concluding speakers panel so typical of research seminars was replaced with a facilitated session during which the prominent themes of the seminar where harvested, using a simple buzz group technique. What struck most of us was the depth and knowledge of our common interests and understanding, even though our backgrounds were so different. Disturbingly, some in the academy still feel that theory should critique current practice even when it merely presumes what is actually practised. I dismissed the thought that we may have been the victims of devils' advocacy. For example, there were frequent statements which ignored the effect of facilitation on group dynamics, a prerequisite of deliberative processes. Also, it was often assumed incorrectly that all deliberative processes conclude with a decision-making phase--in processes like citizens juries participants make small commitments on the way to constructing and tuning a set of narrative recommendations. There is also a persistent belief that quantitative, experimental research is the preferred form of inquiry in political science, even though qualitative methods can find trustworthy meaning in real-world settings where a control group just can't be isolated. In a complex political world, sometimes the determination of linear cause is an absurdity. I was especially chuffed with the social psychologists who, like me, perceive a lack of scholarly attention on the role of social learning in deliberative processes. From them I picked up the phrase boundary object which describes a term perceived somewhat differently by different communities. Well, that surely would apply to deliberation. At the start of some presentations, especially those which presumed a great deal of shared theoretical knowledge, I was apprehensive. But I was surprised to find myself keeping up well, actively noting questions and critique. It was satisfying that several questions asked by others related to my own. So in the end, I really did feel that I belonged in the room, and admitted as much when asked directly to comment by the facilitator. In his well-received paper, Dryzek invited all of us to celebrate what he calls the empirical turn in deliberative democracy. He showed us that many theoretical critiques miss the point or worse. So whether we ground or attempt to validate theory, we should examine what actually occurs. And this means studying not just the act of deliberation itself, but the rising institutionalisation of deliberative practice that is true to its normative ideals.
Published under a Creative Commons License
