IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v3y2000i1p1-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forms of talk in policy dialogue: distinguishing between adversarial and collaborative discourse

Author

Listed:
  • Seth Tuler

Abstract

Many environmental and risk issues require decisions or agreements among competing stakeholders who argue, deliberate, and discuss about a variety of issues, including facts, values, substance, and process. Often such decisions or agreements remain elusive because the process of decision making becomes adversarial. Yet, while policy deliberations can be instrumental in character, they have also been viewed as potentially enabling new understandings and inclusive agreements to develop. But, just what exactly are these intended deliberations supposed to be? They have been described as, for example, 'reflexive', 'real debate', 'constructive', and 'generative'. These descriptors are in contrast to less preferred alternatives, such as 'rhetorical', 'adversarial', 'unreflexive', 'polarized', and the like. This paper describes a semiotic framework for distinguishing among different types of discourse in policy-making processes. Two ways of talking in policy deliberations are defined: monologic and dialogic forms of discourse, which can loosely be understood to parallel the distinction between adversarial and collaborative ways of talking, respectively. However, to define their use in practice is another matter. For example, how does one identify whether someone is 'understanding' or talking 'constructively'? Data from a forest policy dialogue are used to illustrate how the two forms of discourse are distinguished by participants in practice. These data suggest how collaboration may be improved by the shaping of the discourse among the participants. Implications for the design of deliberative policy-making processes and for the study of risk communication and risk controversies are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Seth Tuler, 2000. "Forms of talk in policy dialogue: distinguishing between adversarial and collaborative discourse," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1-17, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:3:y:2000:i:1:p:1-17
    DOI: 10.1080/136698700376671
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/136698700376671
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/136698700376671?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Jennifer Duffield Hamilton, 2003. "Exploring Technical and Cultural Appeals in Strategic Risk Communication: The Fernald Radium Case," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 291-302, April.
    2. Jan Bebbington & Judy Brown & Bob Frame & Ian Thomson, 2007. "Theorizing engagement: the potential of a critical dialogic approach," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 20(3), pages 356-381, June.
    3. Collins, Dorothy L. & Street Jr., Richard L., 2009. "A dialogic model of conversations about risk: Coordinating perceptions and achieving quality decisions in cancer care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1506-1512, April.
    4. Jamie K. Wardman & Ragnar Löfstedt, 2018. "Anticipating or Accommodating to Public Concern? Risk Amplification and the Politics of Precaution Reexamined," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1802-1819, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:jriskr:v:3:y:2000:i:1:p:1-17. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.