Sophie Allain (French National Institute for Agricultural Research)

In postempiricist policy analysis, participatory inquiry has been designed as an innovative methodology aiming to facilitate citizen involvement in public deliberation and the shaping of interpretative communities gathering experts and citizens, therefore taking up Harold Lasswell's vision of policy sciences devoted to democracy. In such approaches, the policy analyst, portrayed as a "Deliberative Policy Analyst", serves as a "facilitator of public learning and political empowerment" (Fischer, 2003, p.221). Basic to this orientation are an emphasis on the medium of language, which is considered as profoundly shaping our views, interests and concerns, a conception of the politics as a discursive struggle to create and control systems of shared social meanings, and a normative idea of policy-making relying on a renewal of the processes of will formation through communicative interaction conducted by ethical rules (Fischer and Forester, 1993; Hajer and Wagenaar, 2003). Methodological considerations are then intrinsically linked to theoretical and normative considerations.

I will argue that such a position misses to cope with the problem of collective action, by focusing on deliberative sequences and then leaving the decision-making in the shadow, and by assuming, explicitly or implicitly, that communication is sufficient to turn struggle into collaboration. I will therefore suggest that a postempiricist endeavour to cope with the problem of collective action brings to frame the Policy Analyst as a Mediator, which implies new methodological, theoretical and normative considerations. Such a perspective has been suggested by Forester and Law (2007), but I wish here show that mediation is not a mere technique, as it is presented in the Handbook of Public Policy Analysis edited by Fischer and alii (2007). More specifically, I will show that a mediation-based conception of policy analysis relies on an idea of politics as a negotiation, where negotiation must not be restricted to interest-based bargaining and integrates possibilities of learning.

Judy Brown (Victoria University of Wellington)

In recent years, academics in a wide range of disciplinary contexts have re-examined concepts of 

expertise and understandings of the relations between corporate decision-makers, public policymakers, experts and citizens. Various strands of the "science and society" literature have challenged technocratic and apolitical understandings of science-society relations and sought to foster more open, pluralistic and power-sensitive approaches to knowledge and expertise.  Academics in economics, management, public policy and other social science disciplines - increasingly conscious of the value-laden nature of their disciplines - have similarly sought to re-theorize concepts of professional expertise rooted in positivist models of knowledge production and dissemination.  Based on such developments, this paper argues that it is time for a significant re-think of what accounting expertise does or might mean in the context of increasingly pluralist and complex societies.  Over the years, researchers have problematized different aspects of what it means to be a "good" accounting professional in a plural and power-laden society; most recently in the context of calls for more "dialogic" approaches to accounting.  This paper seeks to elaborate on existing critiques of "technocratic" accounting, relate them to wider disciplinary debates, and offer a framework for developing more (critically) pluralistic approaches. 

Tara Ney (University of Victoria)

Provisions in the Crime Victim Assistance Act in British Columbia and the accompanying Regulations, support counseling services for victims who have been psychologically injured by particular crimes. Literature suggests that trauma from many crimes can be significantly reduced when the victim requests and is given an opportunity to meet with the offender. Of concern to this paper is that a critical policy document (Crime Victim Assistance Program Counseling Guidelines, 2003) that is intended to support the adjudication of the Act and Regulations, explicitly excludes the "offender" (the person who has caused the harm) as part of the counseling process. This exclusion in effect denies victims access to restorative processes aimed at healing the injury caused by the crime.

 
In short, this policy act governs and limits the kind of psychological intervention victims may access. In so doing, it obstructs some victims' ability to heal from a crime, and thus, is not in keeping with, and perhaps contrary to the Act's intent. This policy form of governance is problematic in three ways. First, it does not take into account the mounting research that shows restorative approaches are an effective response to psychological trauma. Second, it interferes with a collaborative decision-making process that would otherwise be reserved between the counseling therapist and victim of crime. And, third, it tampers with an opportunity for restorative practices to be more legitimized and integrated into the victim services delivery system.
 
Using a discursive methodology, this research will interrogate this "policy site", showing how the denial of a legitimate and effective form of counseling to victims of crime is a political decision, disguised and held in place by bureaucratized rhetoric. By discursively interrogating the tensions between conflicting discourses (criminal justice, feminist, and economic), we conclude that the intent of the victim assistance legislation is undermined by a policy that reflects a profound disconnect with evidence-based research on psychological recovery from crime-induced trauma. As result, some victims of crime are being denied access to psychological services that would otherwise support them to heal from the crime.

Khairil Ahmad (University of Essex)

This paper aims to deploy Romand Coles' conception of 'moving democracy' to the study of identity/difference, particularly to the issue of religion in public life within the British context. The question of where the analyst stands within his/her research is becoming increasingly pressing in recent times, given the rise of research methods and techniques that work beyond the essentialist boundaries of positivist and behaviourist methodologies, such as interpretive policy analysis and post-structuralist discourse theory. What is pertinent -besides giving the subjects under scrutiny the capacity for agency - is for one to table his/her case and/or normative expectations in pursuing a particular research in order to avoid resembling the disengaged position that one's positivist/behaviourist counterparts take. In this paper I propose that in our capacity as analyst, we should operate immanently, i.e. as a participant amongst the constituencies that are being studied within the theme of the research itself, and undertake the task of being 'in between' the constituencies that we work with within the research, and moving from one site to another - from reading relevant texts, to engaging with diverse and opposing theoretical concepts, to analysing policy papers and reports, to engaging with people who are affected by the research problem - in search for new possibilities of how democratic engagements between a multitude of political identities can be (re)imagined. I will demonstrate how the concept of moving democracy can be deployed with an exploration of the present Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams' thoughts about the position and potential roles that religious communities could play in the public sphere. Williams' position, which he claims speaks for the certain demands by religious communities that are not adequately captured by secular thinking and governance, serves as the point of entry for me to problematise the discourse of secular liberalism, represented in my paper by Rawls' political liberalism. Williams' position also serves as the case in point for me to engage with policy practices in Britain, as far as the issue of social cohesion is concerned. Here my analysis includes policy papers and legislations towards issues concerning community cohesion, multiculturalism and local and neighbourhood councils, as well as commissioned reports along similar lines. Finally I argue that to probe issues and concerns that linger in the research one also needs to engage with local and grassroots groups, which in my case would be inter-faith groups around the UK in order to verify the status of Williams' articulation of his political position, in order to make sure that his claims are in line with grassroots demands. Facilitated by the concept of moving democracy, all these can be carried out with the analyst him/herself maintaining his/her own normative expectations towards the issue that is being studied. It also opens up the possibility - through one's encounter with the various contending political positions in the research - to critically reflect on one's own political commitments, to explore the possibilities of potential collaborations with one's constituents, and to facilitate in drawing up blueprints for policy and action that would reconnect the present state of policy practices to grassroots realities.