Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From De-Problematized Expert Knowledge to Politics of Critical Dialogue: Toward Process-Relational Policy Theories

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A Relational Approach to Governing Wicked Problems

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Relational Sociology ((PSRS))

  • 67 Accesses

Abstract

In Chap. 9 we take the final steps toward process-relational approaches to theories of the policy process, by first moving beyond the politics/policy dualism in them. We analyze next the institutionalization of politics in policy networks and the political constitution of policy through issue framing. We conclude our discussion with the notion of politics of critical dialogue which we see as most consistent with the trans-actionalist approaches we have proposed in this book. This is the concluding chapter of Part II, whose aim was to take stock from the “history of the present” (in Foucault’s sense) of policy theories, in order to formulate the model of governance as a multidimensional process of the interdependence problematization and de-problematization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abbott, A. (2016). Processual sociology. The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff, R. L. (1971). Towards a system of systems concepts. Management Science, 17(11), 661–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, G. (1969). Conceptual models and the Cuban Missile Crisis. The American Political Science Review, 63(3), 689–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacchi, C., & Goodwin, S. (2016). Poststructural policy analysis. A guide to practice. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bachrach, M., & Baratz, P. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, K. (2020). Transforming the relational dynamics of urban governance: How social innovation research can create a trajectory for learning and change.Urban Studies, 57(14), 2868–2884.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, G. (1977 [1972]). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Ballantine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (Eds.). (2002). Policy dynamics. Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. R. & Jones, B. D. (2009 [2003]). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkland, T. (1998). Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy, 18(1), 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkland, T. (2010). An introduction to the policy process. Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boland, R., & Collopy, F. (2004). Managing as designing. Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boushey, G. (2012). The punctuated equilibrium theory of agenda-setting and policy change. In E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, & X. Wu (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy (pp. 138–152). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, K. (2015). Between representation and narration: Analysing policy frames. In F. Fischer, D. Torgerson, A. Durnová, & M. Orsini (Eds.), Handbook of critical policy studies (pp. 441–461). Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. (1984). The approach to plural rationality through soft systems methodology. In M. Grauer, M. Thompson, & A. P. Wierzbicki (Eds.), Plural rationality and interactive decision processes (pp. 8–21). Processes. Proceedings of an IIASA (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis) Summer Study on Plural Rationality and Interactive Decision Processes Held at Sopron, Hungary, August 16–26, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chia, R., & Holt, R. (2009). Strategy without design. The silent efficacy of indirect action. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman, C. W. (1972). Systems analysis and policy planning: applications in defence (Book review). Policy Sciences, 3(1), 117–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1971). The politics of agenda-building: An alternative perspective for modern democratic theory. The Journal of Politics, 33(4), 892–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1972). Participation in American politics. Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M., March, J., & Olsen, J. A. (1972). Garbage can model of organisational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, N., & Wagenaar, H. (2012). Navigating the eternally unfolding present: Toward an epistemology of practice. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(1), 3–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daviter, F. (2011). Policy framing in the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Daviter, F. (2014). The political use of knowledge in the policy process. Policy Sciences, 48, 491–505

    Google Scholar 

  • Dépelteau, F. (2018). From the concept of ‘Trans-Action’ to a process-relational sociology. In F. Dépelteau (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of relational sociology (pp. 499–519). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1946). The public and its problems. An essay in political inquiry. Chicago Gateway Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, W. N. (1993). Policy reforms as arguments. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The Argument turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 254–290). Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton, D. (1953). The political system: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton, D. (1957). An approach to the analysis of political systems. World Politics, 9(3), 383–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkjaer, B., & Simpson, B. (2011). Pragmatism: A lived and living philosophy. What can it offer to contemporary organization theory. In H. Tsoukas & R. Chia (Eds.), Philosophy and organization theory (pp. 55–84). Bingley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (2007). Deliberative policy analysis as practical reason: Integrating empirical and normative arguments. In F. Fischer, G. Miller, & M. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy. Analysis theory, politics, and methods (pp. 223–236). CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester J. (1995). Response: Toward a critical sociology of policy analysis. Policy Sciences, 28, 385–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (2006a). Exploring urban practice in a democratising society: Opportunities, techniques and challenges. Development Southern Africa, 23(5), 569–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (2006b). Policy analysis as critical listening. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. Goodin (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 124–151). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (2009). Dealing with differences dramas of mediating public disputes. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (2012). On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: Deliberative practice and creative negotiations. Planning Theory, 12(1), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (2017). Planning in the face of conflict. The surprising possibilities of facilitative leadership. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (2021). Our curious silence about kindness in planning: Challenges of addressing vulnerability and suffering. Planning Theory, 20(1), 63–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A. (2003). Associations and democracy: Between theories, hopes, and realities. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 515–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2001). Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered participatory governance. Politics and Society, 29(1), 5–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gadamer, H.-G. (2004). Truth and method. Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. University of Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. An essay on the organization of experience. North-eastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening. Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural sciences. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (2002). Historical ontology. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. A. (2003). A frame in the fields: Policymaking and the reinvention of politics. In M. A. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (Eds.), Deliberative policy analysis (pp. 88–110). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hanf, K., & Scharpf, F. (Eds.). (1978). Interorganisational policy making. Limits of coordination and central control. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman, G. (2014). Bruno Latour. Reassembling the political. Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. (1948). Individualism and economic order. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogwood, B. (1987). From crisis to complacency: Shaping public policy in Britain. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, R. (2010). The governance of problems. Puzzling, powering, participation. The Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M. (2011). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Hulst, M., & Yanow, D. (2016). From policy “frames” to “framing.” Theorizing a more dynamic, political approach. American Review of Public Administration, 46(1), 92–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones B. (1994). A change of mind or a change of focus? A theory of choice reversals in politics. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 4(2), 141–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. D. (2016). A radical idea tamed: The work of Roger Cobb and Charles Elder. In N. Zahariadis (Ed.), Handbook of public policy Agenda setting (pp. 25–34). Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junginger, S. (2014). Towards policymaking as designing: Policymaking beyond problem-solving and decision-making. In C. Bason (Ed.), Design for policy (pp. 57–69). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little, Brown & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klasche, B., & Selg, P. (2020). A pragmatist defence of rationalism: Towards a cognitive frame-based methodology in IR. International Relations, 34(4), 544–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2016). Governance networks in the public sector. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klijn, E. H., & Skelcher, C. (2007). Democracy and governance networks: Compatible or not? Four conjectures and their implications. Public Administration, 85(3), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoepfel, P., Larrue, C., Varone, F., & Hill, M. (2007). Public policy analysis. Polity Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koppenjan, J., & Klijn, E. H. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks. A network approach to problem solving and decision making. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. (1951). The policy orientation. In D. Lerner & H. Lasswell (Eds.), The policy sciences (pp. 3–15). Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, J., & Urry, J. (2004). Enacting the social. Economy and Society, 33(3), 390–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laws, D., & Forester, J. (2007). Public policy mediation: From argument to collaboration. In F. Fischer, G. Miller, & M. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy. Analysis theory, politics, and methods (pp. 513–536). CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of “muddling through.”. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39(6), 517–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linder, S. H., & Peters, G. B. (1984). From social theory to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 4(3), 237–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippmann, W. (1993). The phantom public. Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowi, T. (1964). Review: American business, public policy, case-studies, and political theory. World Politics, 16(4), 677–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowi, T. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 32(4), 298–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumi, O. (2014). A comparative insight into the status of the lobbying regulation debate in Estonia. Journal of Public Affairs, 14(1), 44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, W. (1995). Public policy: An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, A., & Guzik, K. (Eds.). (2009). The mangle in practice. Science, society, and becoming. Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainey, H. (1997). Understanding and managing public organizations. Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reckwitz A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices. A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rein, M., & Schön, D. (1993). Reframing policy discourse. In F. Fischer (Ed.), Argument turn policy anal plan (pp. 145–166). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rein, M., & Schön, D. (1996). Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice. Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization, 9(1), 85–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rein, M., & Schön, D. A. (1977). Problem setting in policy research. In C. H. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making (pp. 235–251). Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, M., & Holwell, S. (Eds.). (2010). Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riker, W. H. (1984). The heresthetics of constitution-making. The presidency in 1787, with comments on determinism and rational choice. American Political Science Review, 78, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. (1979 [1972]). Systems analysis of ‘The First and Second Generations’. In P. Laconte P. J. Gibson, & A. Rapoport (Eds.), Human and energy factors in urban planning: A system approach (pp. 35–52). Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute on “Factors Influencing Urban Design” Louvain-Ia-Neuve, Belgium, July 2–13, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rochefort D. (2016). Agenda setting, problem definition, and their contributions to a politicalpolicy analysis. In Zahariadis N. (Ed.), Handbook of public policy agenda setting (pp. 35–52). Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochefort, D., & Donnelly, K. (2013). Agenda-setting and political discourse: Major analytical frameworks and their application. In E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, & X. Wu (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy (pp. 198–203). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The Semisovereign people. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, E. E. (2004/1942). Party government: American government in action. With a new introduction by Sidney A. Pearson, Jr. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). The social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1964/1957). Models of man: Social and rational: mathematical essays in a social setting. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1985). Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science. The American Political Science Review, 79(2), 293–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelcher C., Mathur N., & Smith M. (2005). The public governance of collaborative spaces: Discourse, design and democracy. Public Administration, 83(3), 573–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Jr., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E. (2002). Democratic theory and network governance. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 24(4), 693–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005). The democratic anchorage of governance networks. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28(3), 195–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (Eds.). (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strübing, J. (2007). Research as pragmatic problem-solving: The pragmatist roots of empirically-grounded theorizing. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 560–601). SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (1995). Philosophical arguments. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torfing, J., Peters, G., Pierre, J., & Sørensen, E. (2012). Interactive governance. Advancing the paradigm. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical heuristics of social planning: A new approach to practical philosophy. Haupt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (1987). Critical heuristics of social systems design. European Journal of Operational Research, 31(3), 276–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (2007). Philosophy for professionals: Towards critical pragmatism. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(8), 1109–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valner, S. (Ed.). (2018). Administrative reform 2017 in Estonia. Collections of articles. Decisions, background, implementation. Ministry of Finance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberghe, F. (2018). The relation as magical operator: Overcoming the divide between relational and processual sociology. In F. Dépelteau (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of relational sociology (pp. 35–57). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar, H. (2011). A beckon to the makings, workings and doings of human beings. The critical pragmatism of John Forester. Public Administration Review, 71(2), 293–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar, H. (2015). Meaning in action: Interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar, H., & Wenninger, F. (2020). Deliberative policy analysis, interconnectedness and institutional design: Lessons from “Red Vienna.”. Policy Studies, 41(4), 411–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winship, C. (2006). Policy analysis as puzzle solving. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 109–123). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (2003). Ambiguity and choice in public policy. Political decision making in modern democracies. Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of public policy agenda setting. Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Governance, Law & Society, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia

    Peeter Selg

  2. School of Governance, Law and Society, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia

    Georg Sootla & Benjamin Klasche

Authors
  1. Peeter Selg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Georg Sootla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Benjamin Klasche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peeter Selg .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Selg, P., Sootla, G., Klasche, B. (2023). From De-Problematized Expert Knowledge to Politics of Critical Dialogue: Toward Process-Relational Policy Theories. In: A Relational Approach to Governing Wicked Problems. Palgrave Studies in Relational Sociology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24034-8_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24034-8_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-24033-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-24034-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation