Your CIOS file request: Q-METHOD/06119121.246 hotline item

-
Received:  by CIOS Mailer; Thursday 11 Jun 2009 12:12:46
Date:         Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:11:08 -0400
From:         "BROWN, STEVEN" 
Subject: Q Bibliography: Davies, Blackstock & Rauschmayer on deliberative processes
To:           Q-METHOD@LISTSERV.KENT.EDU
List-Help: ,              
List-Unsubscribe: 
List-Subscribe: 
List-Owner: 
List-Archive: 

--_000_C656A4DC70A6sbrownkentedu_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


John Bradley's reference to Bakhtin and Q's ability to implement a commitme=
nt to give fair hearing to diverse perspectives (heteroglossia) is echoed i=
n a recent paper by Davies, Blackstock, and Rauschmayer, who recommend Q as=
 a means for systematically recruiting representatives of specific points o=
f view as a prelude to deliberative discussion.  Davies et al. extend the a=
dvocacy of fair hearing by showing how diverse standpoints can be incorpora=
ted into the decisionmaking process.

Davies, Ben B., Kirsty Blackstock, & Felix Rauschmayer (2005).  "Recruitmen=
t," "composition," and "mandate" issues in deliberative processes: Should w=
e focus on arguments rather than individuals?  Environment and Planning C: =
Government and Policy, 23, 599-615.  Abstract.  Public participation in env=
ironmental decisionmaking has become an accepted part of Western societies =
over the last three decades. Whereas on a simple level every democratic pro=
cess based on aggregating individual preferences contains an element of pub=
lic participation, the literature on discursive democracy emphasises instea=
d a more subtle, rich, and intense social process of deliberation. In this =
model, the spectrum of understandings, interests, and values expressed in d=
ifferent discourses is explored in detail by participants before a decision=
 is reached. Although within an idealised model of discursive democracy suc=
h 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 f=
orms of "minipublics", which contain in most cases only a tiny proportion o=
f the relevant community--for example, citizens' juries and consensus confe=
rences. We identify three problem areas concerning the choice of participan=
ts in such "minipublics", which we call the "recruitment problem" (how indi=
vidual participants are chosen to take part), the "composition problem" (wh=
at 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 con=
sequently the rationale for why the results of such processes should be con=
sidered legitimate in either an advisory or a decisionmaking capacity is of=
ten unclear.  We review the limitations of traditional recruitment methods =
and suggest a new alternative we consider appropriate for discursive proces=
ses--utilising Q methodology as a step  in developing a purposive sampling =
frame for the recruitment phase. Although this approach is not without prob=
lems, 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.

Ben Davies  and Kirsty Blackstock  are affiliated with the Socio-Economics Research Programme, T=
he Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland; Felix Rauschmayer  is in the Department for Economics, Sociology, and Law, UFZ-Ce=
ntre for Environmental Research [Zentrum fur Umweltforschung], Leipzig-Hall=
e, Germany.

Davies et al.'s paper should be read alongside the article by Dryzek and Ni=
emeyer, which was summarized in an April 30 posting:

Dryzek, J.S. & Niemeyer, S. (2008).  Discursive representation.  American P=
olitical Science Review, 102, 481-493.  Abstract:  Democracy can entail the=
 representation of discourses as well as persons or groups. We explain and =
advocate discursive representation; explore its justifications, advantages,=
 and problems; and show how it can be accomplished in practice. This practi=
ce can involve the selection of discursive representatives to a formal Cham=
ber of Discourses and more informal processes grounded in the broader publi=
c sphere. Discursive representation supports many aspects of deliberative d=
emocracy and is especially applicable to settings such as the international=
 system lacking a well-defined demos.

Dryzek and Niemeyer also recommended Q as a means for representing the dive=
rsity of perspectives within a deliberative process.

It is perhaps worth noting that whereas Q is applicable to Bakhtin's concep=
ts of monologic, dialogic, and heteroglossia (as John Bradley implies), it =
is also applicable to glossolalia, or unintelligible utterances (as in free=
 associations and the biblical speaking in tongues).  The former are more n=
early substantive in character whereas the latter are transitive.  It is in=
 the character of discourses and narratives that they are linear (or quasi-=
linear) and sensible, but the more general concept of concourse knows no su=
ch limits.
___________________________________________
*  _____  ______  ____  __ __  ____  ___ _  *  Steven R. Brown
| |  ___||_    _||  _ ||  |  ||  _ ||   | | |  Political Science
| |___  |  |  |  |  _| |  |  ||  _| |     | |  Kent State University
| |_____|  |__|  |____| \___/ |____||_|___| |  (sbrown@kent.edu)
*___________________________________________*_________________________
Inside an organization there are only cost centers. The only profit center =
is a customer whose check has not bounced. (Peter F. Drucker)





On 6/11/09 6:21 AM, "John Bradley"  wrote:


Our discussion of the cool wall, group sorts and supposed consensus made me=
 remember a time a few years ago when I tried to understand the work of Bak=
htin, who as I understand it, talked about the monologic - where a single v=
oice claims to speak for all, the dialogic, where we hear debating voices a=
nd heteroglossia - the richness of different voices and viewpoints. It seem=
ed to me that Q was a technique to take us beyond the monologic and dialogi=
c to a better understanding of the heteroglossia. I was limited in my acces=
s to Bakhtin by only finding one source in English. Does anyone in the grou=
p know more about Bakhtin, or has anyone thought about his ideas in relatio=
n to Q?

Holquist, M. (Ed) (1981). The dialogic imagination: four essays by M. M. Ba=
khtin. (1934-1935) Austin: University of Texas Press.

John

Dr John Bradley
Head of Inclusion Services
and Principal Educational Psychologist
Children & Young People's Services
Nottinghamshire County Council

--_000_C656A4DC70A6sbrownkentedu_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








John Bradley’s reference to Bakhtin and Q’s ability to implemen=
t a commitment to give fair hearing to diverse perspectives (heteroglossia)=
 is echoed in a recent paper by Davies, Blackstock, and Rauschmayer, who re=
commend Q as a means for systematically recruiting representatives of speci=
fic points of view as a prelude to deliberative discussion.  Davies et=
 al. extend the advocacy of fair hearing by showing how diverse standpoints=
 can be incorporated into the decisionmaking process.



Davies, Ben B., Kirsty Blackstock, & Felix Rauschmayer (2005).  &#=
8220;Recruitment,” “composition,” and “mandate̶=
1; issues in deliberative processes: Should we focus on arguments rather th=
an individuals?  Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy,=
 23, 599-615.  Abstract.  Public participation in envi=
ronmental decisionmaking has become an accepted part of Western societies o=
ver the last three decades. Whereas on a simple level every democratic proc=
ess based on aggregating individual preferences contains an element of publ=
ic participation, the literature on discursive democracy emphasises instead=
 a more subtle, rich, and intense social process of deliberation. In this m=
odel, the spectrum of understandings, interests, and values expressed in di=
fferent 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 b=
y the issue under discussion, a range of constraints mean that in practice =
this ideal model can only be approximated by discussions held in various fo=
rms of “minipublics”, which contain in most cases only a tiny p=
roportion of the relevant community--for example, citizens' juries and cons=
ensus conferences. We identify three problem areas concerning the choice of=
 participants in such “minipublics”, which we call the “r=
ecruitment problem” (how individual participants are chosen to take p=
art), the “composition problem” (what the final composition of =
the minipublic is), and the “mandate problem” (what role each o=
f the participants assumes within the process). We suggest that most studie=
s have not explicitly distinguished these elements, and consequently the ra=
tionale for why the results of such processes should be considered legitima=
te in either an advisory or a decisionmaking capacity is often unclear. &nb=
sp;We review the limitations of traditional recruitment methods and suggest=
 a new alternative we consider appropriate for discursive processes--utilis=
ing 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 addre=
ss the recruitment problem for those processes seeking to approximate discu=
rsively democratic ideals.



Ben Davies <b.davies@macaulay.ac.uk<=
/a>> and Kirsty Blackstock <k=
.blackstock@macaulay.ac.uk> are affiliated with the Socio-Economics =
Research Programme, The Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland; Felix Rausc=
hmayer <felix.rauschmayer@ufz.de> is in the Department for Economics, Sociology, and Law, UFZ-Centre fo=
r Environmental Research [Zentrum fur Umweltforschung], Leipzig-Halle, Germ=
any.



Davies et al.’s paper should be read alongside the article by Dryzek =
and Niemeyer, which was summarized in an April 30 posting:



Dryzek, J.S. & Niemeyer, S. (2008). &nb=
sp;Discursive representation.  American Political Science Review, 1=
02, 481-493.  Abstract:  Democracy can entail the repr=
esentation of discourses as well as persons or groups. We explain and advoc=
ate discursive representation; explore its justifications, advantages, and =
problems; and show how it can be accomplished in practice. This practice ca=
n involve the selection of discursive representatives to a formal Chamber o=
f Discourses and more informal processes grounded in the broader public sph=
ere. Discursive representation supports many aspects of deliberative democr=
acy and is especially applicable to settings such as the international syst=
em lacking a well-defined demos.

 ________________________________________=
___

*=A0 _____=A0 ______=A0 ____=A0 __ __=A0 ____=A0 ___ _=A0 *=A0 Steven R. Brown

| |=A0 ___||_=A0=A0=A0 _||=A0 _ ||=A0 |=
=A0 ||=A0 _ ||=A0=A0 | | |=A0 Political Science=


| |___=A0 |=A0 | =A0|=A0 | =A0_| |=A0 | =
=A0||=A0 _| |=A0=A0=A0=A0 | |=A0 Kent State Uni=
versity

| |_____|=A0 |__|=A0 |____| \___/ |____||=
_|___| |=A0=A0(sbro=
wn@kent.edu)

*________________________________________=
___*_________________________

Inside an organization there are only=
 cost centers. The only profit center is a customer whose check has not bou=
nced. (Peter F. Drucker)











On 6/11/09 6:21 AM, "John Bradley" <john.bradley@NOTTSCC.GOV.UK> wrote:





Our discu=
ssion of the cool wall, group sorts and supposed consensus ma=
de me remember a time a few years ago when I tried to understand the work o=
f Bakhtin, who as I understand it, talked about the monologic –=
; where a single voice claims to speak for all, the dialogic, where =
we hear debating voices and heteroglossia - the richness of differen=
t voices and viewpoints. It seemed to me that Q was a technique to take us =
beyond the monologic and dialogic to a better understanding of the heter=
oglossia. I was limited in my access to Bakhtin by only finding one sou=
rce in English. Does anyone in the group know more about Bakhtin, or has an=
yone thought about his ideas in relation to Q? 



Holquist, M. (Ed) (1981). The dialogic imaginat=
ion: four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. (1934-1935) Austin: University of Texas =
Press. 



John 



Dr John Bradley

Head of Inclusion Services

and Principal Educational Psychologist

Children & Young People's Services

Nottinghamshire County Council 




--_000_C656A4DC70A6sbrownkentedu_--