32 SES 14, Inclusive Futures Symposium: Organizational Education Approaches to Sustainability – Social and Solidarity Economy and Societal Innovation Part 1
Symposium to be continued in 32 SES 17
Citizen’s panels, consensus conferences, planning cells, deliberative polls, citizens’ juries, policy Delphi-method, deliberative inquiry, 21st Century Town Meetings, open forum as a form of deep democracy, participatory budgeting and deliberative city planning,… can all be labelled as deliberative methods, designed and used to approach wicked problems, to facilitate decision making, and to include everyone in this process. There are some common features of these so-called deliberative methods: (1) participants are provided with balanced factual information about the issue being considered; (2) there is ample opportunity for free and open discussion between citizens and researchers or policy actors or both; (3) participants are encouraged to discuss and challenge the information and consider each other’s views before (4) making a final decision or recommendation for action (Abelson et al., 2003; Degeling, Carter, & Rychetnik, 2015). Deliberative methods are not only deployed by deliberative democrats and curriculum experts; the less closely a deliberative exercise is tied to a policymaking process, the more it begins to look like research (Burchardt, 2014). Despite practitioner experience with and empirical investigation on deliberative methods the research literature lacks investigations of the rationales and underlying assumptions of deliberative methods. Especially when you look at deliberative methods from the lens of legitimacy theory (e.g. Cohen, 2003) or assessment frameworks based on this theory (e.g. Bekkers & Edwards, 2007; Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2015) inclusiveness of all stakeholders in a decision making process is at stake: by including everyone affected in the process leading to a decision, deliberations could prove capable of generating political outcomes that receive broad public support, even when there is strong disagreement on the aims and values a polity should promote (Caluwaerts and Reuchamps, 2015). Moreover, deliberative methods do not only wish to address stakeholders’ issues -at times excluded from the policy table. In order to obtain legitimate answers, the process also has to include all perspectives towards the issue at stake. However if and to what extent the goal of inclusive decision making, by every stakeholder and given every perspective, can be reached by using these methods is worth an investigation, certainly when deliberative methods become more widely distributed.
Abelson, J. et al. (2003). Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine, 57(2), 239-251 Bekkers, V., & Edwards, A. (2007). Legitimacy and democracy: a conceptual framework for assessing governance practices. In V. Bekkers, G. Dijkstra, A. Edwards, & M. Fenger (Eds.), Governance and the democratic deficit: Assessing the democratic legitimacy of governance practices (pp. 35-60). Aldershot, UK Burchardt, T. (2014). Deliberative research as a tool to make value judgements. Qualitative Re-search, 14(3), 353-370 Caluwaerts, D., & Reuchamps, M. (2015). Strengthening democracy througt bottom-up de-liberation: An assessment of the internal legitimacy of the G1000 project. Acta Politica, 50(2), 151-170 Cohen, J. (2003). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In D. Matravers & J. Pike (Eds.), De-bates in contemporary political philosophy. An anthology. (pp. 342-360). London. Degeling, C. et al. (2015). Which public and why deliberate? – A scoping review of public de-liberation in public health and health policy research. Social Science & Medicine, 131, 114-121 Wouters, R. (2015). Beraadslagend onderzoek in onderwijs: het gaat niet om het juiste maar om het beste antwoord. School- en Klaspraktijk, 57(227), 8-20. Wouters, R. et al. (2016). Bestuderen + delibereren = beraadslagend onderzoeken. Impuls, 46(4), 177-184
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.