André Bächtiger (University of Bern), Susumu Shikano (University of Konstanz), Seraina Pedrini (University of Bern) Mirjam Ryser (University of Bern)

This paper presents a re-developed measurement for the (deliberative) analysis of political processes. First, the new measure operationalizes the analysis of political communication in a way that incorporates classic and Habermasian-inspired concepts of deliberation (such as justification rationality and respect) and expansive forms of deliberation (such as story-telling and fair bargaining). Second, the new measure sets cut values for deliberative quality while simultaneously addressing the lack of uni-dimensionality in previous research on deliberative quality. To do so, we first aggregate the diverse deliberative standards into discourse types, whereby we distinguish among (1) proto-discourse, (2) conventional discourse, (3) competitive discourse, (4) cooperative discourse, and (5) rational discourse. The assignment of the different deliberative standards to discourse types is accomplished in a probabilistic fasion on the basis of the Item-Response-Model. Second, we also sequentialize the communication process. A sequential perspective not only unravels the dynamic nature of communication processes, it can also be ideally linked to a conception of discourse types: since it is not very likely that an entire communication process can be captured by a single discourse type, a sequential strategy might help to uncover the variety of discourse types in a communication process. To illustrate the empirical relevance of the discourse types and the sequenzialization strategy, we focus on two parliamentary debates in the Swiss first chamber in the 1990s.

André Bächtiger, University of Bern/University of Konstanz, baechtiger@ipw.unibe.ch

Susumu Shikano, University of Konstanz, susumu.shikano@uni-konstanz.de

Seraina Pedrini, University of Bern

Mirjam Ryser, University of Bern

Thomas Kalwitzki, (Carl-von-Ossietzky-Universität Oldenburg), Wolfgang J. Luhan (Ruhr-Universität Bochum), Bernhard Kittel, (Carl-von-Ossietzky-Universität Oldenburg)

A growing number of social science experiments seek to examine the behavior of groups rather than individuals as decision makers. Though the majority of these experiments involve (and record) some sort of interaction, research has so far been limited to  the final decisions taken by the groups. The evaluation was to the largest part focused on testing the predictions from theoretical models, thereby excluding from consideration the communication process that led to this outcome. While the process of decision making remains unobservable (at least to social science) in the case of individual actors, communication in decision making groups represents a "black box" that can be opened using alternative and complementary approaches to analysis. This way, research may not only examine which decisions are taken but furthermore how and why these decisions were generated. We present an example of qualitative chat analysis of an experiment on turnout and strategic voting that demonstrates the capacity of a combined experimental-qualitative approach.

Thomas Kalwitzki, Carl-von-Ossietzky-Universität Oldenburg, thomas.kalwitzki@uni-oldenburg.de

Wolfgang J. Luhan, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, wolfgang.luhan@rub.de

Bernhard Kittel, Carl-von-Ossietzky-Universität Oldenburg, bernhard.kittel@uni-oldenburg.de

Frank Nullmeier, (University of Bremen), Tanja Pritzlaff, (University of Bremen)

Although sophisticated technological tools and innovations seem to provide an adequate answer to the growing complexity and scope of collective decision interactions, actual decision interactions for the most part still rely on face-to-face meetings. Apparently, face-to-face communication between agents involved in joint decisions is still looked upon as being the most reliable and effective tool compared to other forms of problem-solving interaction. Certain features inherent in face-to-face communication seem to function as elements of uniformity and stability across time and space. This finding is also supported by the fact that efforts to replace face-to-face decision communication with technically mediated forms of interaction or to recreate practices of collective decision-making using artificial intelligent systems have failed time and again. The aim of the paper is to show that typical practices can be identified at the micro-level of political face-to-face interaction that lead to stability, continuity and the production of trust in contexts of strategic interaction. A key feature of these face-to-face problem-solving practices is their triadic structure, i.e. the fact that at least three agents are simultaneously involved in these types of practices. The triad, not the dyad, may therefore be identified as the fundamental constellation of face-to-face collective decision-making.

Based on a comparison between results from a series of computer-mediated chat experiments conducted in an economic lab, face-to-face group experiments in a controlled setting and the analysis of audiovisual data from actual committee meetings at different levels, the paper presents examples of typical practices of face-to-face interaction that are significant for the achievement of collective decisions. As can be shown, the success and effectiveness of these problem-solving practices relies heavily on their triadic structure. It can also be shown that participants of computer-mediated chat experiments weren't able to perform these types of triadic practices or to substitute them in a successful way - not only due to the time delay in written communication, but also due to the fact that participants weren't able to reinforce the function of their respective interventions through elements of face-to-face communication like eye contact and nonverbal utterances.

Arata Yamamoto, University College London

Over the last three decades or so, the language of public participation, be it deliberative, communicative or collaborative, has become prevalent in both the theory and practice of policy making and planning. Yet, planners themselves continue to express scepticism towards public participation, often quoting the threat of NYMBY-ism and the need to have regard to just planning outcomes as well as procedures. Nevertheless, given this prevalence, the present paper argues that discourses and storylines of public participation themselves should be regarded as significant categories of political analysis. Accordingly from a Hajerian discourse analytic perspective, this paper firstly argues that the attitudes, motivations and actions of planners towards public participation are shaped within constantly shifting institutional context, or changing communicative relations between planning stakeholders. Subsequently, this paper further argues that forcing planners to accept unwanted participatory practices will only be de-legitimised by their manipulation of existing institutional context. This argument is then examined using qualitative empirical data gathered from interviews and published materials on the participatory processes that are established for the first London Plan making process at the Greater London Authority between 2000 and 2004. This paper concludes by claiming that stakeholders in pursuit of more deliberative processes need to accommodate unequal communicative relations between planning stakeholders in their political strategy and to consider whether their planning goals and interests might be better served by expressing them using ideas, concepts and discursive categories that are unrelated to the prevailing perception of public participation. 

Arata Yamamoto, University College London, ucftaya@ucl.ac.uk

Myrte Berendse, Hanneke Duijnhoven, Sander Merkus (VU University Amsterdam)

Current examples of problems concerning the development of infrastructure in the Netherlands (and abroad) indicate the need for changes in the planning of infrastructural projects. From a societal perspective, costs-overruns, delays, safety risks and other issues have become increasingly problematic. The discourse of change emanating from public inquiry reports concerned with infrastructure development reflect a concern regarding the need for changes in the "administrative culture" surrounding decision-making processes. However, until now, there have been relatively few systematic attempts to capture the backstage dynamics of administrative culture. From an interpretive perspective, (administrative) culture is approached as a process of sensemaking (Weick, 1995; Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2006), with a strong focus on the daily practices of actors at the micro level of organizations. From such a perspective, processes of decision-making are characterized by a complex interplay of problems, interests, polyphonic interpretations, and power struggles, especially when there are many different (public and private) partners (Teisman & Klijn, 2002). The growing body of narrative analyses in organization studies and other fields conceptualizes expressions of culture as narrative accounts. This conceptualization is particularly suited for the analysis of decision-making processes in administrative settings because throughout such processes actors continuously engage in negotiations of meaning (Berendse et al., 2006; Van Hulst, 2008). In this paper we focus on the reconstruction of a completed decision-making process in the Netherlands: the Dutch Zuider Zee Line. The project was about creating a fast public transport connection between Amsterdam Schiphol Airport in the urban West and the more isolated city of Groningen in the North. In this paper we focus on the negotiations among representatives of the central government and the regional authorities regarding the signing of the public co-operation agreement before starting the tender procedure. By looking at the Zuider Zee Line as a narrative construct, we set out to understand the process through which­­ actors in administrative settings constantly construct and reconstruct various versions of the aim and relevance of the project against the background of their own values, interests and agenda.

Myrte Berendse, VU University Amsterdam, m.berendse@fsw.vu.nl

Hanneke Duijnhoven, VU University Amsterdam, hl.duijnhoven@fsw.vu.nl

Sander Merkus, VU University Amsterdam, s.merkus@fsw.vu.nl

Huub Dijstelbloem, University of Amsterdam

The governance of risk is one of those area's where deliberative and participative initiatives have been used widely to re-establish the relationship of the state with citizens and citizens-groups, to narrow the 'gap' between the social and the political order. This paper will analyze such a case of collective decision-making under conditions of uncertainty by taking a closer look at the policy-making process and its deficits in the early days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the Netherlands (1983). It will do so by making use of the currently rediscovered insights of the American philosopher John Dewey. In 1927, Dewey already famously described the problem of legitimacy of political institutions that are running behind social change. His solution was that if political institutions fail to represent the people, they should embrace a new task and search for new publics. This public is not the same as the pre-existing demos, but comes into being as a consequence of new social or technological issues and is as volatile as a demon. This paper, therefore, will search for neglected publics. The Dutch response to HIV/AIDS has become regarded as a fine example of a successful attempt of collective decision-making. The co-operation between public authorities, health organizations, medical professionals, blood banks and social organizations, particularly the gay movement, helped establish a widely supported public health approach. Compared with other countries, deeply dividing social conflicts such as discrimination and stigmatization of homosexuals, were avoided. However, the Netherlands had their blood scandal too. The Dutch Ministry of Health failed to protect patients with hemophilia from the threat of infection with HIV through blood products. In a critical report the Netherlands's Ombudsman  accused the government of being too passive and ill informed and of not reacting quickly enough to the facts. The claim of this paper is that, would the policy-process have been directed to the search for new publics, another outcome was possible. That will be shown by a reconstruction of two forms of representation that were present in the policy-process: the scientific investigation of the causes of AIDS, the spread of the epidemic and the determination of the risk groups; and the political institutionalization of the several social groups, professionals, organization, and authorities involved in the process. This reconstruction demonstrates that the positions of the different groups and their mutual relationships not only depended on their institutional role but also on their relationship with the blood-supply and their specific perception of risk. The conclusion is that to successfully explain the failure of the policy process, it is insufficient to reduce it to a 'social process'. Instead it is argued that the crucial factor was the relationship of the new publics with the blood-supply and the meaning these groups attached to the risks involved. Only by taking this material conditions into account, publics can be adequately involved in policy-processes.  

Huub Dijstelbloem, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, dijstelbloem@wrr.nl

Silvia von Steinsdorff, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin,

Research into the internal decision-making process of constitutional courts as well as the desired outcome of a constitutional judge's decision has been dominated by two traditionally separated views: a judicial and a political perspective. The political scientific explanatory model for a constitutional judge's decision behavior is based on the supposition that the central motive of a constitutional judge is the implementation of his/her political position. This very one-dimensional view however neglects the importance of constitutional court working procedures in the mechanism of judicial decisions. Therefore "(t)he (positive, effective, defacto) behavior should be studied to conclude the similarly-arranged norms and values of behavioral codes. Causes for behavioral regularity are not surmised from the motives, intentions, and norms of actors but from the structural embedding." (Jansen 2006, 23) The combination of these perspectives (both sides have convincing empirical proof to verify their existence) has not yet been achieved. A model for the motivation as well the process behind a constitutional judges' decision must include the double logic behind such a decision. To analytically comprehend the two logics, it is reasonable for each decision model to construct the entire decision process with the help of the following three aspects: 1) the decisionmaker, 2) the opinion-shaping and decision-making process and (3) the type of decision. The basis of such an abstract model (inclusive of the different variables of decision-making) also involves developing a typology of the logic behind constitutional legal decisions in which, according to the arrangement of different indicators, the political or juridical aspects may appear more strongly in the foreground. Ideally the study of European constitutional courts will position or even cluster itself within this typology. The goal is to establish more types and thereby to assess differently the independent variables that affect the decision-making process. Three basic types tentatively emerge against the background of the current state of knowledge but, according to the level of abstraction, more sub-categories will become apparent. The focus of this paper will be the theoretical outline for our model and the presentation of our actual model of the internal decision making process. 

Silvia von Steinsdorff, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, silvia.von.steinsdorff@cms.hu-berlin.de

Katharina Zahradnik, University of Vienna

One of the key principles of modern democracies is that each voter's vote should weigh the same in parliamentary elections. Equality in the power of votes is largely regarded as an essential foundation for establishing equality in representation and is widely assumed to be guaranteed by the principle of one-citizen/one-vote. However, some features that are characteristic for the competitive process of parliamentary elections give reason to question this presumed equality in the power of votes. Research on party competition tells us that for a party that is striving for electoral success it is crucial to activate and convince those groups of voters among their constituencies that have high electoral participation rates. From this we can expect that parties might be more attentive to the preferences of those segments of voters among their electorate that weigh more decisively on a party's electoral success. This raises the question of whether - over time - parties represent the policy preferences of all of their voters equally well, or whether particular segments within a party's electorate are persistently privileged over others. By looking into measurements of ideological distance and by using the example of three country cases the paper presents findings on how parties represent different segments within their actual constituencies and how patterns of congruence between parties and their voters vary across time and context.

Katharina Zahradnik, Institute for Advanced Studies and University of Vienna, katharina.zahradnik@ihs.ac.at

Akua O Britwum

Using case study findings on the six affiliates of the Ghana Trades Union Congress this paper will examine the forms of democratic opportunities created for women in representative structures through gender democracy strategies and identify the processes that lend support to women's efforts to expand their space within their trade unions. The paper will in addition examine how women's consciousness can form the basis for the development of power and authority for transforming union structures in their interests. Whilst gender democracy strategies might present limited opportunities for women trade union members their realisation that union is about them and that they have a right to demand that their needs are met is important site for building power to the challenge union patriarchal structures. This should provide the ingredient that should propel women to assert their right of ownership of their unions. 

(by Akua O Britwum)