IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v54y2020i2d10.1007_s11135-019-00922-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enclave deliberation and common-pool resources: an attempt to apply Civic Preference Forum on community gardening in Hungary

Author

Listed:
  • Fanni Bársony

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • György Lengyel

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • Éva Perpék

    (Hungarian Academy of Sciences
    Corvinus University of Budapest)

Abstract

By analysing experiences of a Civic Preference Forum organised for community gardeners in Hungary in 2017, our paper’s aim is twofold. We investigate if the Civic Preference Forum was an adequate format to enable discursive participation. Then we provide evidence on how this deliberative method can be applied on common-pool institution design gaining scientific knowledge about community gardening. Community gardeners, garden coordinators and experts were invited to the pilot Civic Preference Forum to share their experiences, problems, doubts, solutions, and opinions related to community gardening. First, the potential link between community gardening and deliberation is discussed and the method of Civic Preference Forum is introduced and placed among the deliberative and participative methods. Then by the lessons of the forum on community gardening it is demonstrated how the method can deliver insights for participants, decision-makers and academia. Participants’ preferences and wishes are analysed by applying and testing the criteria of discourse quality analysis. It is argued that the Civic Preference Forum fulfilled the criteria of equal and open discursive participation and the analytic dimensions of evaluating the discourse worked well in the case of a Civic Preference Forum. Enclave deliberations based on proximity may differ from collective identity-based ones in terms of composition and implications. The first may result intra-group discursive equality, while the second may provide inter-group equality. Beside the methodological findings, the explored positive and negative side effects and limitations of the methods, the forum delivered new scientific knowledge on community gardens as common-pool resources, which helps to better understand the mechanisms in community projects. We learned that community gardeners’ discourse was focused on such nodal themes as dependence and independence, monitoring and control, active and passive membership, equal and unequal participation, free riding and collective action, rules and norms of land cultivation and behaviour. Civic Preference Forum as a method enabled participants to clarify preferences, thematise problems and wishes as well as exchange ideas on possible solutions to them.

Suggested Citation

  • Fanni Bársony & György Lengyel & Éva Perpék, 2020. "Enclave deliberation and common-pool resources: an attempt to apply Civic Preference Forum on community gardening in Hungary," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 687-708, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:54:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11135-019-00922-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-019-00922-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-019-00922-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-019-00922-5?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. Christopher F. Karpowitz & Chad Raphael & Allen S. Hammond IV, 2009. "Deliberative Democracy and Inequality: Two Cheers for Enclave Deliberation among the Disempowered," Politics & Society, , vol. 37(4), pages 576-615, December.
    2. Marlène Gerber, 2015. "Equal Partners in Dialogue? Participation Equality in a Transnational Deliberative Poll (Europolis)," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 63, pages 110-130, April.
    3. David McVey & Robert Nash & Paul Stansbie, 2018. "The motivations and experiences of community garden participants in Edinburgh, Scotland," Regional Studies, Regional Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 40-56, January.
    4. Karpowitz, Christopher F. & Mendelberg, Tali & Shaker, Lee, 2012. "Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 106(3), pages 533-547, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Schäfer, Andreas & Merkel, Wolfgang, 2020. "Emanzipation oder Reaktion: Wie konservativ ist die deliberative Demokratie? [Emancipation or Reaction: How Conservative is Deliberative Democracy?]," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 61(3), pages 449-472.
    2. O’Brien, Diana Z. & Rickne, Johanna, 2016. "Gender Quotas and Women's Political Leadership," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(1), pages 112-126, February.
    3. Jonathan Kingsley & Aisling Bailey & Nooshin Torabi & Pauline Zardo & Suzanne Mavoa & Tonia Gray & Danielle Tracey & Philip Pettitt & Nicholas Zajac & Emily Foenander, 2019. "A Systematic Review Protocol Investigating Community Gardening Impact Measures," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-12, September.
    4. Stephanie Sardelis & Joshua A Drew, 2016. "Not “Pulling up the Ladder”: Women Who Organize Conference Symposia Provide Greater Opportunities for Women to Speak at Conservation Conferences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, July.
    5. Justin Reedy & Raymond Orr & Paul Spicer & Jessica W. Blanchard & Vanessa Y. Hiratsuka & Terry S. Ketchum & Bobby Saunkeah & Kyle Wark & R. Brian Woodbury, 2020. "Deliberative democracy and historical perspectives on American Indian/Alaska native political decision-making practices," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Bodea, Cristina & Kerner, Andrew, 2022. "Fear of inflation and gender representation in central banking," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    7. Megan Grubb & Christian R. Vogl, 2019. "Understanding Food Literacy in Urban Gardeners: A Case Study of the Twin Cities, Minnesota," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-15, July.
    8. Daniel C. Kelly, 2023. "Committing to change? A case study on volunteer engagement at a New Zealand urban farm," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 1317-1331, September.
    9. De Paola, Maria & Lombardo, Rosetta & Pupo, Valeria & Scoppa, Vincenzo, 2021. "Do Women Shy Away from Public Speaking? A Field Experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    10. Manuel Bagues & Mauro Sylos-Labini & Natalia Zinovyeva, 2017. "Does the Gender Composition of Scientific Committees Matter?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 1207-1238, April.
    11. Kim Strandberg & Kim Backström & Janne Berg & Thomas Karv, 2021. "Democratically Sustainable Local Development? The Outcomes of Mixed Deliberation on a Municipal Merger on Participants’ Social Trust, Political Trust, and Political Efficacy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-17, June.
    12. Scott Radnitz, 2018. "Historical narratives and post-conflict reconciliation: An experiment in Azerbaijan," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(2), pages 154-174, March.
    13. Fatmir Haskaj, 2021. "(Community) garden in the city: Conspicuous labor and gentrification," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 53(5), pages 1051-1075, August.
    14. Andrés Rolando Ciro Gómez, 2020. "El derecho fundamental a deliberar : análisis de la moralidad política de su privación a los miembros de la Fuerza Pública en Colombia," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1187, October.
    15. Jae Ho Lee & David Matarrita-Cascante, 2019. "Gardeners’ Past Gardening Experience and Its Moderating Effect on Community Garden Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-16, June.
    16. Alicia R. Ingersoll & Christy Glass & Alison Cook & Kari Joseph Olsen, 2019. "Power, Status and Expectations: How Narcissism Manifests Among Women CEOs," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(4), pages 893-907, September.
    17. Dryzek, John S. & Stevenson, Hayley, 2011. "Global democracy and earth system governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1865-1874, September.
    18. Rui Nan & Yongjiao Yang, 2022. "Who Is Willing to Participate in Local Governance? Modernization of Shared Governance in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-16, November.
    19. Lissy Goralnik & Lucero Radonic & Vanessa Garcia Polanco & Angel Hammon, 2022. "Growing Community: Factors of Inclusion for Refugee and Immigrant Urban Gardeners," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, December.
    20. Marta Fraile, 2014. "Does deliberation contribute to decreasing the gender gap in knowledge?," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(3), pages 372-388, September.

    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:spr:qualqt:v:54:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11135-019-00922-5. 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.