Competencias específicas

This research extends Hendriks’ debate on a combined micro-macro approach by applying this to quangos. The findings ultimately demonstrate that one institution cannot realistically achieve all the standards of deliberative democracy and as a consequence both micro and macro conceptions are critical and relevant for institutionalising the model. Each sphere has a role and function and this division of labour would help deliberative democracy overcome some of the challenges they face; division allows flexibility. A flexible deliberative system recognises that social inequalities exist and that not all citizens need to have the same level of skills/knowledge to be able to participate (Chambers, 2017). While it recognises the

important role of experts, these experts should be challenged and scrutinised by citizens (Chambers, 2017). This principle should also apply to citizens and scrutiny should therefore be a two-way process. Lastly, a deliberative system includes a variety of deliberative styles and not just rational discourse (Chamber, 2017). This variety aims to ensure that democratic deliberation can be achieved because citizens and experts can communicate more effectively

185

together through different styles of communication and are not restricted. Micro and macro concepts should therefore co-exist and be integrated as part of a flexible deliberative system to ensure deliberative democracy can be institutionalised in real-world structures such as networks and quangos.

However, there was limited evidence of a variety of types of discourse being used in the NICE PHAC meetings as members were typically senior-level experts from the medical profession their discourse style was rational and formal. This is an important finding because it suggests that at times networks may find it practically difficult to change just because of their composition. Consequently, it may not be feasible for networks to include other types of deliberation (type II) in the more formal process but this style of discourse still needs to be included elsewhere if it is absent from formal processes. Overall, networks need to make a conscious effort to form stronger links with other parts of the wider deliberative system (Dryzek, 2011). This is because each part of the system plays a role and has a function. If the function of the network is to “identify the best possible answer to technically complex

questions it is reasonable to organise a deliberative meeting among experts” (Chappell, 2010, 301). Indeed, it would be testing for non-experts to meaningfully and equally engage in this type of expert focused deliberation. However, when developing guidance, other complex issues arise such as moral, social and ethical issues. These need to be addressed too. We should not expect networks to carry out all these functions and involve a range of participants that may not be suited to the structure or format. Other deliberative spaces in the macro sphere could be coupled to networks where participation is more suited to a broader range of individuals.

It is not necessarily a new concept that the norms of deliberative democracy ought to be relaxed (Elstub, 2006, Sanders, 1997, Young, 1996) but this thesis provides further empirical

186

evidence to support this argument. This would make the model more inclusive and viable. Relaxing the core norms of deliberative democracy to include type II deliberation such as stories, rhetoric and emotional discourse and self-interest could encourage participation from a wider range of individuals and therefore deliberation could be more inclusive and equal. Deliberative democracy needs to evolve as a theory and become more aligned to real-world practice in order for it to be implemented in organisations.

If deliberative democracy is to be more tolerant of other forms of communication and not just type I deliberation then this also needs to be captured methodologically. Despite the DQI being described as a “flexible framework” (Steenbergen et al, 2003, 42) it mainly focuses on the standards of deliberative democracy which are more typical of micro deliberation such as an emphasis on rationality and justification of arguments. With the rising importance of macro conceptions of deliberative democracy and type II discourse these standards must also be captured and measured. These conceptual developments in deliberative theory must be reflected in empirical measurements (Bachtiger et al., 2009). Attempts have been made to do this; however critics such as Gould (2009) argue that a DQI-style approach does not capture the public essence of macro deliberation. For deliberative democracy to evolve successfully and maintain relevance in today's society, effective and appropriate measures need to be developed.

Currently, there exist two broad ideal types of deliberation. Type I which is focused on rational discourse and on process; and type II which includes alternative forms of

communication and takes a prime focus on deliberative institutions and outcomes (Bachtiger et al, 2009). However, there is also the potential for a type III deliberation. This would include deliberation which was rational, reasoned and justified but at the same time accept that story-telling, lived experience and self-interest are also relevant forms of evidence which

187

decisions can be based on. Scientific, technical and medical evidence would also feature in this style of deliberation. It differs from type II deliberation as it would also explore the way in which deliberation is delivered i.e. through tone and body language. These are important cues which can effectively change the meaning of discourse. Type III might also take into account the environment in which deliberation occurs as this can have an impact on how individuals participate in deliberation. Acting as a middle ground between type I and II, networks could include type III deliberation in decision making providing the conditions are right.

For example, networks should be more plural by including a mixture of individuals in the process and encourage discursive inclusion (type I, II and potentially III). They can achieve this through coupling with other deliberative spaces such as mini-publics like citizen juries and deliberative polls. This is particularly relevant for networks which are de-coupled as it can offer some procedural and functional guarantee to formally link relevant deliberative spaces and participants in deliberation. This is because mini publics are “are participatory processes designed to elicit informed and considered public input from people who would not normally engage in conventional consultation or advocacy” (Hendriks, 2016, 47). This could make decision making processes in governance networks, and quangos more accountable, inclusive and fair because coupling would be formally embedded in the process with links that are not tokenistic or symbolic.

Networks can encourage more informal dialogue in a variety of spaces in the public arena. A key role for these deliberative events could be to help discover and evaluate solutions to difficult or testing problems which emerge in the network. Here, members of society could put issues onto the formal network agenda instead of being ultimately driven by the network or quango, which is often the case. New or different issues could be included which may not

188

have been previously considered by the network. The agenda would also be driven by

individuals affected by decisions rather than professionals or experts and this could essentially re-frame the debate.

Networks that have like-minded individuals involved in the deliberation and decision making are more likely to have a stable discourse. This can prevent contested discourses being considered and therefore the process can be deemed ineffective as things are rarely

challenged. Networks could avoid this stabilized discourse by ensuring that different experts, professionals, citizens and patients are brought together to meaningfully deliberate issues in a balanced way.

Finally, there also must be some shift in their accessibility. Networks often host their

deliberation removed from the public arena and this hinders access, transparency and scrutiny. Some are not very visible and need to be more public. Even when they are open to the public, as with the case in NICE, not many individuals attend. They can be better at connecting to the public sphere by utilising social media platforms such as twitter to raise awareness that they are open to the public and to connect and generate interest in the topics they are deliberating.