Abstract:Hajer and Wagenaar (<a href="#">2003</a> Hajer, Maarten A., and Henrik Wagenaar, eds. 2003. Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<a href="/servlet/linkout?suffix=CIT0028&dbid=16&doi=10.1080%2F01442872.2019.1618817&key=10.1017%2FCBO9780511490934">[Crossref]</a> , <a class="google-scholar" href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?hl=en&publication_year=2003&author=Maarten+A.+Hajer&author=Henrik+Wagenaar&title=Deliberative+Policy+Analysis%3A+Understanding+Governance+in+the+Network+Society">[Google Scholar]</a>. Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, xiv, 16) advanced a conception of policy analysis – "Deliberative Policy Analysis" – that "rests on three pillars: interpretation, practice and deliberation." This form of policy analysis, they argued, supports "more direct, participatory forms of democracy" involving "democratic deliberation on concrete issues" (xv, 29). Since their writing, empirical research on such initiatives – "democratic innovations," for short – has blossomed. However, while deliberative policy analysis is itself post-positivist in orientation, many researchers bring a (quasi-) positivist orientation to their work on democratic innovations. A key challenge for deliberative policy analysts is, then, how to participate in this field of inquiry while maintaining a post-positivist orientation. Pragmatist philosophy, I submit, can help them to meet this challenge. Pragmatism rejects a number of positivist assumptions about the nature of empirical inquiry. Relatedly, it supports the claim that policy analysis should be interpretive, practice-oriented, and deliberative. Indeed, it suggests that policy analysis cannot avoid being so. By way of illustration, I indicate how pragmatism points to an approach to case study research that rests on the three pillars.

Deliberation and Policy-Making: Three Ways to Think About Minipublics’ Consequences

Deliberative Mini-publics as a Response to the Crisis of Representative Democracy: First Attempts at Institutionalization in European Cities

Mini-publics, student participation, and universities’ deliberative capacity

Unleashing the Transformative Power of Deliberation With Contextual Citizens

Democracy without Shortcuts: Introduction to the Special Issue

Influencing health policy through public deliberation: Lessons learned from two decades of Citizens'/community juries

Policy and Science: Options for Democratisation in European Countries

A twenty-first century Citizens’ POLIS: introducing a democratic experiment in electronic citizen participation in science and technology decision-making

An Approach for Combining Ethical Principles with Public Opinion to Guide Public Policy

Deliberation Among Informed Citizens: The Value of Exploring Alternative Thinking Frames

Studying democratic innovations: toward a problem-driven approach to case study research

Opportunities and Risks of LLMs for Scalable Deliberation with Polis

"Public(s)-in-the-Loop": Facilitating Deliberation of Algorithmic Decisions in Contentious Public Policy Domains

Deliberative Platform Design: The case study of the online discussions in Decidim Barcelona

Grappling With the Inclusion of Patients and the Public in Consensus Building: A Commentary on Inclusion, Safety, and Accessibility; Comment on "Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study"

Participatory Democracy and Sustainability. Deliberative Democratic Innovation and Its Acceptance by Citizens and German Local Councilors

Evaluating unintended consequences: New insights into solving practical, ethical and political challenges of evaluation

Reason Against the Machine: Future Directions for Mass Online Deliberation

Balancing epistemic quality and equal participation in a system approach to deliberative democracy

Online Deliberation Design: Choices, Criteria, and Evidence

Rethinking public participation in the smart city