IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v48y2015i1p25-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Think tank 2.0 for deliberative policy analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ya Li

Abstract

Deliberative policy analysis (DPA) is one of the significant developments in the trend of post-positivist policy analysis. However, the question of how to practice is a thorny issue hindering its development and dissemination. More particularly, the organizational aspect for the practice of DPA has never been well explored. Taking an organizational perspective, this article proposes a novel concept of “think tank 2.0” (TT2.0), which is designed to host deliberative analysts and to integrate the policy inquiry with public participation, deliberation, and dispute resolution. The article begins with a hypothetical example to showcase what DPA means and how it works. The following section presents a brief review of the principles of DPA, and a call for developing DPA institutes on account of the complexity of conducting deliberative analysis. Next, the article brings the conceptual framework of TT2.0 and its two models: an external model describing the relations among TT2.0 and other policy actors and an internal model structuring the roles within a TT2.0 and their division of labor. Finally, the article discusses some varieties of TT2.0 in operation and suggests several strategies for devising and operating TT2.0. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Ya Li, 2015. "Think tank 2.0 for deliberative policy analysis," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(1), pages 25-50, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:48:y:2015:i:1:p:25-50
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-014-9207-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11077-014-9207-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-014-9207-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carolyn Hendriks & Lyn Carson, 2008. "Can the market help the forum? Negotiating the commercialization of deliberative democracy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(4), pages 293-313, December.
    2. Kathleen McNutt & Gregory Marchildon, 2009. "Think Tanks and the Web: Measuring Visibility and Influence," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 35(2), pages 219-236, June.
    3. Toddi A. Steelman & Lynn A. Maguire, 1999. "Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 361-388.
    4. Ryane Straus, 2011. "Citizens’ use of policy symbols and frames," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(1), pages 13-34, March.
    5. Dan Durning, 1999. "The transition from traditional to postpositivist policy analysis: A role for Q-methodology," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 389-410.
    6. Dan Durning, 1993. "Participatory policy analysis in a social service agency: A case study," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(2), pages 297-322.
    7. Carolyn M. Hendriks, 2006. "Integrated Deliberation: Reconciling Civil Society's Dual Role in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(3), pages 486-508, October.
    8. Murray Rutherford & Michael Gibeau & Susan Clark & Emily Chamberlain, 2009. "Interdisciplinary problem solving workshops for grizzly bear conservation in Banff National Park, Canada," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(2), pages 163-187, May.
    9. Carolyn M. Hendriks, 2006. "Integrated Deliberation: Reconciling Civil Society's Dual Role in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54, pages 486-508, October.
    10. Greg Hampton, 2009. "Narrative policy analysis and the integration of public involvement in decision making," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(3), pages 227-242, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rodrigues, S. & Restrepo, C. & Kontos, E. & Teixeira Pinto, R. & Bauer, P., 2015. "Trends of offshore wind projects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1114-1135.
    2. Mahbubur Meenar & Megan Heckert & Deepti Adlakha, 2022. "“Green Enough Ain’t Good Enough:” Public Perceptions and Emotions Related to Green Infrastructure in Environmental Justice Communities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-17, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Helen Pallett & Jason Chilvers, 2013. "A Decade of Learning about Publics, Participation, and Climate Change: Institutionalising Reflexivity?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(5), pages 1162-1183, May.
    2. Michael B. Wironen & Robert V. Bartlett & Jon D. Erickson, 2019. "Deliberation and the Promise of a Deeply Democratic Sustainability Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.
    3. N. Exel & G. Graaf & P. Rietveld, 2011. "“I can do perfectly well without a car!”," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 383-407, May.
    4. Ching Leong & Raul Lejano, 2016. "Thick narratives and the persistence of institutions: using the Q methodology to analyse IWRM reforms around the Yellow River," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 445-465, December.
    5. Corus, Canan & Ozanne, Julie L., 2012. "Stakeholder engagement: Building participatory and deliberative spaces in subsistence markets," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(12), pages 1728-1735.
    6. John Dryzek, 2015. "Deliberative engagement: the forum in the system," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(4), pages 750-754, December.
    7. Lehtonen, Markku, 2019. "Ecological Economics and Opening up of Megaproject Appraisal: Lessons From Megaproject Scholarship and Topics for a Research Programme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 148-156.
    8. Maarten Wolsink, 2004. "Policy Beliefs in Spatial Decisions: Contrasting Core Beliefs Concerning Space-making for Waste Infrastructure," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(13), pages 2669-2690, December.
    9. Jennifer Dodge, 2014. "Civil society organizations and deliberative policy making: interpreting environmental controversies in the deliberative system," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(2), pages 161-185, June.
    10. M. Jae Moon & Seulgi Lee & Seunggyu Park, 2023. "Citizensourcing policy advisory systems in a turbulent era," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(3), pages 303-318.
    11. Alfred Moore, 2010. "Public Bioethics and Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 715-730, October.
    12. Michel J.G. van Eeten, 2001. "Recasting Intractable Policy Issues: The Wider Implications of The Netherlands Civil Aviation Controversy," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 391-414.
    13. Rebecca Sandover & Alice Moseley & Patrick Devine-Wright, 2021. "Contrasting Views of Citizens’ Assemblies: Stakeholder Perceptions of Public Deliberation on Climate Change," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 76-86.
    14. Michel P. Pimbert & Boukary Barry, 2021. "Let the people decide: citizen deliberation on the role of GMOs in Mali’s agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 1097-1122, December.
    15. Buizer, Marleen & Van Herzele, Ann, 2012. "Combining deliberative governance theory and discourse analysis to understand the deliberative incompleteness of centrally formulated plans," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 93-101.
    16. Harri Raisio & Pirkko Vartiainen, 2015. "Accelerating the public’s learning curve on wicked policy issues: results from deliberative forums on euthanasia," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 339-361, September.
    17. Carey Doberstein, 2016. "Designing Collaborative Governance Decision-Making in Search of a ‘Collaborative Advantage’," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(6), pages 819-841, July.
    18. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    19. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    20. Matthew Auer, 2006. "Contexts, multiple methods, and values in the study of common-pool resources," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(1), pages 215-227.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:48:y:2015:i:1:p:25-50. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.