Abstract Information is a source of power in the planning process. This article begins by assessing five perspectives of the planner's use of information: those of the technician, the incremental pragmatist, the liberal advocate, the structuralist, and the “progressive.” Then several types of misinformation (inevitable or unnecessary, ad hoc or systematic) are distinguished in a reformulation of bounded rationality in planning, and practical responses by planning staff are identified. The role and ethics of planners acting as sources of misinformation are considered. In practice planners work in the face of power manifest as the social and political (mis)-man-agement of citizens' knowledge, consent, trust, and attention. Seeking to enable planners to anticipate and counteract sources of misinformation threatening public serving, democratic planning processes, the article clarifies a practical and politically sensitive form of “progressive” planning practice.

Planning in the Face of Power.

To raise the question of the nature of narrative is to invite reflection on the very nature of culture and, possibly, even on the nature of humanity itself. So natural is the impulse to narrate, so inevitable is the form of narrative for any report of the way things really happened, that narrativity could appear problematical only in a culture in which it was absent-absent or, as in some domains of contemporary Western intellectual and artistic culture, programmatically refused. As a panglobal fact of culture, narrative and narration are less problems than simply data. As the late (and already profoundly missed) Roland Barthes remarked, narrative "is simply there like life itself. . international, transhistorical, transcultural."' Far from being a problem, then, narrative might well be considered a solution to a problem of general human concern, namely, the problem of how to translate knowing into telling,2 the problem of fashioning human experience into a form assimilable to structures of meaning that are generally human rather than culture-specific. We may not be able fully to comprehend specific thought patterns of another culture, but we have relatively less difficulty understanding a story coming from another culture, however exotic that

/pdf/the-value-of-narrativity-in-the-representation-of-reality-33noyvckm3.pdf

The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality

Editors' introduction Maarten A. Hajer and Hendrik Wagenaar Part I. Policy Conflict and Deliberation in the Network Society: 1. Collaborative policy making: governance through dialogue Judith Innes and David Booher 2. Place, identity and local politics: analysing initiatives in deliberative governance Patsy Healey, Claudio de Magelhaes, Ali Madanipour and John Pendlebury 3. A frame in the fields. Policy making and the reinvention of politics Maarten Hajer Part II. Rethinking Policy Practice: 4. Democracy through policy discourse Douglas Torgerson 5. Understanding policy practices: action, dialectic and deliberation in policy analysis Hendrik Wagenaar and Scott Noam Cook 6. Reframing practice David Laws and Martin Rein Part III. Foundations of a Deliberative Policy Analysis: 7. Beyond empiricism: policy analysis as deliberative practice Frank Fischer 8. Accessing local knowledge: policy analysis and communities of meaning Dvora Yanow 9. Theoretical strategies of post-structuralist policy analysis: towards an analytics of government Herbert Gottweiss.

Deliberative policy analysis : understanding governance in the network society

Getting to YES. Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In

▪ Abstract Deliberative democratic theory has moved beyond the “theoretical statement” stage and into the “working theory” stage. Although this essay revisits some of the main theoretical debates, this is done via a survey and evaluation of the state of deliberative democratic theory as it is being applied in a number of research areas and as it intersects with related normative debates. Five research areas are covered: public law, international relations, policy studies, empirical research, and identity politics.

Deliberative democratic theory

Part 1 The argumentative turn: policy institutions and practices: Policy discourse and the politics of Washington think tanks, Frank Fischer Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice - the case of acid rain in Great Britain, Maarten Hajer Political judgement and the policy cycle - the case of ethnicity arguments in the Netherlands, Robert Hoppe Counsel and consensus - norms of argumentation in health policy, Bruce Jennings. Part 2 Analytical concepts - frames, tropes, and narratives: Survey research as rhetorical trope - electric power planning arguments in Chicago, J.A. Throgmorton Frame reflective policy discourse, Martin Rein and Donald Schon Reading policy narratives - beginning, middle, and end, Thomas J. Kaplan Learning from practice stories - the priority of practical judgement, John Forester. Part 3 Theoretical perspectives: Policy anlysis and planning - from science to argumentation, John Dryzek Planning through debate - the communicative turn in planning theory, Patsy Healey Policy reforms as arguments, William Dunn Two worlds of policy discourse - consensual versus adversarial proposal selection, Duncan MacRae.

http://www.untag-smd.ac.id/files/Perpustakaan_Digital_2/POLICY%20ANALYSIS%20The%20Argumentative%20turn%20in%20policy%20analysis%20and%20planning.pdf

The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning

Analyses of ‘wicked problems’ often lead to recommendations for collaborative governance as a metagovernance solution. The case of deadlocked European Union genetically modified crop authorization processes offers a good example. However, the stalemate is not the result of the inherent ‘wickedness’ of the problem posed by the risk of genetic modification technology applied to agricultural production of food and feed. Rather, the policy lock-in results from the structure and dynamics of the policy network. Rigid interactions between the same institutionalized policy actors sustain instigation and power games interlaced with question–answer or probing games that jointly reproduce a clash between differently structured problems over and over again. This has created a typical wrong-problem problem situation: the EC imposing ‘safety’ and ‘consumer choice’ of GM crops as a structured problem on member states, business interests and anti-GM NGOs that, for different reasons, saw the cultivation of GM crops as an uncertain and normatively conflicted activity. Neither of the issue network’s opposing discourses and advocacy coalitions gained sufficient political power to bring their preferred problem structuring journeys to closure. Critical reflection on practices of problem structuring suggest scepticism about collaborative meta-governance and stakeholder dialogues as solutions to deal with wickedness. Instead, we argue that the European Commission’s recent coping strategy constitutes incomplete but intelligent management of relational distances in regard to a complex problem.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/09520767231177577

Problem structuring, wrong-problem problems and metagovernance as the strategic management of intractable positions: The case of the EU GM Crop Regulatory Framework controversy

Robert Hoppe

Papers

The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning

Problem structuring, wrong-problem problems and metagovernance as the strategic management of intractable positions: The case of the EU GM Crop Regulatory Framework controversy