Discursive design in policy analysis : epistemology, hermeneutics, and communicative rationality in an applied case study

Abstract

Abstract of a thesis examining a role for discursive design within public policy analysis. There is growing concern regarding the inability of contemporary societies to adequately deal with social and environmental problems. This thesis identifies the epistemological assumptions of much contemporary policy analysis as a significant component of this problem solving debility. Specifically, the assumptions of objectivism, positivist methodologies and instrumental rationalities are charged with having flawed epistemologies, resulting in partial and parochial knowledge. Feminist standpoint theory, Gadamerian hermeneutics and Habermas's theory of communicative rationality are used to produce an epistemology more appropriate for policy analysis. Knowledge is conceptualised as socially situated, and a case for strong objectivity is argued. This results in increased inclusion of marginalized voices into policy processes. Habermas's 'ideal speech situation' is discussed, and identification and mitigation of systemic communicative distortion in policy processes is proposed as a critical requirement for producing improved policy relevant knowledge. Discursive design is examined and proposed as a practical link between epistemology and real world policy processes. Finally, four criteria are developed for identifying locations of communicative distortion in policy processes. A case study is carried out on the Christchurch Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Strategy. Using both structural and phenomenological analyses, the case study addresses three questions: To what extent does this particular policy process fulfil the requirements of the four criteria?; How useful are these criteria in identifying communicative distortion in this policy process?; and What can be learnt about discursive design from this case study? The analysis reveals there was significant communicative distortion produced by some aspects of context and the structure of the process. Critical issues were exclusion or potential exclusion of marginalised or unidentified stakeholders, and the difficulty in producing communicatively rational policy when discursive task groups do not have decision making authority. The discursive deliberation of task group members within the process was relatively free from communicative distortion. Reasons for these conclusions are examined and critical reflections on discursive design takes place.