2. The Theory and Practice of Deliberative Democracy

David Kahane and Gwendolyn Blue

Mitigating and adapting to climate change are among the most pressing challenges we face. The ability of humans to respond wisely, effectively, and quickly will determine the future of our species and of the planet we share with others. This volume as a whole looks at how citizens of Alberta took part in four deliberations related to climate change, and at the difference these deliberations made in a province with an economy driven by fossil fuel extraction. Before Alberta Climate Dialogue (ABCD) came into being in 2010, the Government of Alberta had already engaged citizens in public consultations on climate change, but in ways that were cursory and had little apparent influence (Adkin et al. 2016). The introduction to this volume provided an overview of climate change and climate politics, and of the evolution of deliberative democracy as a field of theory and practice. This chapter digs more deeply into debates within deliberative democracy and how they found expression in ABCD; and it explores the challenge, promise, and potential pitfalls of bringing the tools and frameworks of deliberative democracy to debates and politics around climate change, and how these played out in ABCD.¹

How ABCD Negotiated Debates around Deliberative Democracy

Deliberative democracy, or public deliberation, is one form of citizen participation, alongside a diversity of other approaches. Public deliberation has four characteristics that distinguish it from other discourses and practices of engagement, involvement, participation, and consultation. Firstly, an emphasis on representing the diversity of affected communities in political discussion and problem solving, as distinct from approaches that throw open the doors of a public engagement process and are satisfied with whoever shows up (on this spectrum see Lukensmeyer 2012). Secondly, an emphasis on deliberation: the view that well-designed and effectively implemented processes not only elicit perspectives from participants but give them the information and learning opportunities they need to ground their perspectives, involve them in a careful back-and-forth with those holding different perspectives, and support them in weighing complex considerations and trade-offs (Bohman 1996). Thirdly, deliberative democracy emphasizes the importance of real influence, and of collective decision making in light of this influence: participants should understand themselves as able to affect political outcomes, and should develop common recommendations and/or plan actions in this light. And fourthly, deliberation should be rooted in participants’ values, should support reflection on values, and should orient participants to the possibility of articulating shared, common, or civic values as a basis for their deliberation and decision making (Lukensmeyer 2012).

These four characteristics should not be taken to suggest that deliberative democrats line up around some shared view of the field: there is much debate in both research and practice. Eight key areas of divergence and debate within deliberative democracy were very much alive within ABCD as well.

A first area of divergence within deliberative democracy theory and practice is between claimed democratic spaces, which build from the grassroots up, and invited spaces that originate from a government or other organization and reach out to engage more broadly (Gaventa 2006). Different theories and practices tend to foreground claimed or invited spaces, and to read such spaces through different accounts of social and political change. This is not a binary choice: projects often combine claimed and invited aspects, and indeed, the influence of a process can depend on both having roots in community self-organization and allies within powerful organizations or government (Gaventa and Barrett 2010). ABCD began with an emphasis on partnership with government to hold deliberative processes, but it went on to work with civil society and para-governmental organizations as conveners (see Chapter 6 for further discussion of this evolution). All of ABCD’s deliberations were invited rather than claimed spaces.

A second area of debate in deliberative democracy circles is around the influence that processes need in order to be empowering, effective, and legitimate. Many public consultations run by governments and other organizations seek to elicit the views of citizens, but the voices elicited have obscure or minimal influence on decision making. Some deliberative democrats are willing to work with this sort of constrained influence (Lee 2015). Others see publicity, transparency, and strong public profile for deliberative exercises as a linchpin of influence (Fishkin 1997). And others still see formal commitment to decision-making influence as a principle-driven requirement of good deliberative processes, as well as instrumental in persuading diverse citizens to take part (Fung 2003). ABCD, from its beginnings, saw influence on governments and policy as key in the Alberta context, and oriented its efforts to developing partnerships with government decision makers who would commit to giving uptake to outcomes of citizen processes. This focus was established at a workshop of researchers and practitioners convened in 2009 to put together the application for the Canadian government grant that eventually funded the project. Provincial policy was seen as key to addressing challenges of climate mitigation, and thus as a key target for citizen recommendations; at the same time, there was some pessimism about whether the provincial government would be willing to partner or meaningfully incorporate citizen recommendations, and so municipal governments were taken to be key interlocutors. Recruiting municipal partners proved a steep hill to climb in the Alberta context, though it succeeded with the City of Edmonton (see chapters 6 and 7). Moreover, some members of ABCD were interested in other potentials of citizen deliberation: the Energy Efficiency Choices process explored how deliberation can support NGO lobbying efforts, and Water in a Changing Climate aimed to broaden the frame to include adaptation and water, and was regarded by the Oldman Watershed Council as a way to learn about public deliberation, not a direct input into decisions (see below and chapter 5).

A third area of divergence and ferment in deliberative democratic theory as well as practice involves the distinction between designing one-off deliberative forums and building deliberative systems. Much work in public consultation, engagement, involvement, and deliberation builds contexts for citizen deliberation that have a clear beginning and end in terms of organization, funding, professional support, and outcomes that feed determinately into a decision-making process. There is increasing emphasis among deliberative democrats, though, on both understanding punctual exercises against a backdrop of more complex ecosystems of deliberative and democratic settings and institutions in a community (Chilvers and Longhurst 2012; Mansbridge et al. 2012) and on building capacity for communities, civil society organizations, and governments to go beyond one-off engagement to create the cultures and institutions of a deliberative society (Nabatchi and Leighninger 2015; Mansbridge et al. 2012). All of ABCD’s deliberations were one-off mini-publics, though there was a lot of discussion and effort devoted to understanding these deliberations in their richer contexts, as well as to rooting them in civil society organizations and mobilization. This was particularly true of the Citizens’ Panel on Edmonton’s Energy and Climate Challenges: early proposals from ABCD sought to weave together a mini-public with community-based projects involving both panelists and civil society organizations, though the eventual project did not include this civil society dimension (see chapter 6).

A fourth debate in deliberative democracy, especially in theory, concerns the forms of reason and narrative that support good deliberation. Deliberative democratic theory has some of its roots in approaches that emphasize the importance of adhering to principles of reasoned agreement in deliberations, as distinct from using evocative narratives or passionate rhetoric to sway discussions (Habermas 1993; see also the introduction and chapter 7). Critics of this emphasis on reasonable agreement point to how norms of reasonableness often are used to marginalize certain groups, including women, colonized peoples, people of colour, and others who face or have faced systematic inequality and exclusion from scientific, technical, and philosophical institutions. Norms of reasonableness are not uniform across social groups. These critics describe how legitimate deliberation and joint decision making can take place using more diverse forms of expression (Young 2005; Williams 1998). In ABCD, we sought to make a place for narratives and situated forms of understanding in our processes, but we also wrestled with the privileging of certain forms of expert reasoning and knowledge over others, particularly in ways of communicating climate science and technologies for energy transition. For example, climate scientists as well as civil servants with engineering backgrounds were prominent communicators in the learning stages of both the Oldman Watershed and Edmonton deliberations, and their perspectives were likely accorded weight by participants because of their scientific credentials, as well as assumptions carried by participants about climate change as a complex scientific issue. Attending to how certain groups and sources of expertise are treated as authoritative in speaking about climate change presented a challenge in our collective deliberations (see Blue 2015; Blue and Dale 2016, for an extended discussion).

Related to this debate, a fifth area of discussion within deliberative democratic theory and practice has to do with framing issues for deliberation. Every discussion has a frame: a set of terms, constraints, and assumptions that provide a starting point, a set of tendencies, and potentially a set of formal limitations on debate. Deliberative democrats tend to emphasize the importance of working carefully with diverse groups to define appropriate and legitimate frames for deliberation; being explicit with participants about frames, as well as what is formally on the table and what’s not; and giving scope to participants to challenge frames (Kettering Foundation 2011). But there is a range of views on how these kinds of principled commitments deal with power relations in determining frames; with dominant and marginalized discourses as they shape frames and how conveners, facilitators, and participants engage with frames; and with how norms of reasonableness shape framing (Ulrich 2005). These discussions were alive in ABCD, and we repeatedly experienced how a principled commitment to sensitivity to power relations in framing came up against the reality that dominant frames for climate change and for citizen consultation repeatedly reasserted themselves, and often held sway within our work (see chapters 5 and 7). For example, scientific and technological framings of climate responses were central to the Edmonton deliberation, given the policy moment that deliberation was meant to address, the assumptions that participants brought into the room, the materials provided to participants, and the backgrounds and perspectives of resource people we brought into the room to answer questions. Inequalities of power and framing are challenging to address in practice because they reflect broad systemic tendencies, ideologies, and unquestioned assumptions; these dynamics are slow to change, and are not typically able to be resolved by finding the “right” deliberative procedure. Given this, it is important to sustain acknowledgment and reflection about the powerful role that social context plays in the design and conduct of deliberative initiatives, and to push back against understandings of these spaces as unproblematically neutral.

These power and framing inequities tie into a sixth area of debate within deliberative democracy, the relationship between activism and deliberation. Some approaches privilege public deliberation as a legitimate way of addressing public disputes: different parties bring their claims and perspectives into well-designed forums, which adjudicate between these in terms of the public good. Others acknowledge that where there are unjust forms of power and exclusion, activism can be necessary to bring issues to the deliberative table, and to ensure that they are taken up fairly (Fung 2005). And still others are unwilling to privilege deliberation over activism, and insist that both have their role within a healthy deliberative system (Cornwall and Gaventa 2001). Many members of ABCD were connected to the worlds of activism and climate activism; they wanted deliberations to connect to the energies already present in civil society around climate issues. One complicating factor was the political culture and history of Alberta, where climate change was highly politicized and publics were less mobilized on climate issues than in many other contexts (see chapter 3). The interest of members of ABCD in connecting to activist politics was also complicated by the political situations and strategic interests of partners in deliberation: the City of Edmonton and the Alberta Energy Efficiency Alliance wanted their public deliberations to be broadly seen as legitimate, and to them this entailed limiting the profile of activist languages and groups in the design, materials, and profile of each exercise.

Seventh, there are divergences of practice, and to some extent of theory, around how to understand the relationship between processes that engage citizens and processes that engage organized stakeholder groups (Kahane et al. 2013). Each of ABCD’s deliberations engaged individual citizens, recruited in ways that sought to ensure participant diversity; but each of these processes sat alongside others that engaged organized stakeholders—for example, from the private sector, civil society, and governments. The City of Edmonton, for example, had involved stakeholder representatives extensively in developing The Way We Green, the environmental strategic plan that created the context and political moment for the Citizens’ Panel on Edmonton Energy and Climate Challenges, and civil servants worked with stakeholder representatives in developing the energy pathways between which panelists chose, and in developing an Energy Transition Strategy based in part on panel recommendations. There was minimal crossover between these citizen and stakeholder processes, and opacity around how these different inputs would shape city policy development. This separation of stakeholder and citizen tracks is typical of public deliberation work, though some deliberative approaches bring organized stakeholders and individual citizens into a common deliberative space, or keep deliberations separate but explicitly cross-fertilize them (Kahane et al. 2013).

Eighth, and finally, there is a new current of debate in scholarly analyses of deliberation about the professionalization of public deliberation. Proponents of the professionalization thesis suggest that while the self-image of practitioners of democratic deliberation and other approaches to public participation tends to emphasize the diversity of methods employed, the principles behind the methods, and the progressive democratic outcomes of these processes, the field is in fact organized in ways that tend to deliver quite uniform processes that conform to the interests of the powerful, with ambiguous democratic outcomes (Lee 2015; Lee, McQuarrie, and Walker 2015). For instance, deliberative formats tend to follow quite similar formats such as the use of roundtables, initial warm-up exercises and discussions about core values and concerns, breakout sessions, return to large group with report-backs, and process summaries. This standardization is not a problem in itself and it occurs in any professional field. But insofar as claims about the sameness of deliberative methods are warranted (and it can be hard to sort out which forms of regularity or divergence are most significant in such a sprawling domain of practice), they give reason to temper claims about design innovation. ABCD’s work, and internal conversations, took up this critical concern about serving dominant interests through regularized practices in some moments, and in other moments the concern was subsumed in the hard work of getting deliberations done, in the positive rhetoric of the transformative potential of deliberative processes, and in the financial imperatives that condition the work of participation professionals (Blue and Dale 2016).

These eight debates about deliberative democracy were a subtext to ABCD’s work to convene public deliberations on climate change in Alberta. They emerged repeatedly in internal ABCD meetings and discussions, particularly at the three major team workshops in 2010, 2011, and 2014. And they inflected the development of particular partnerships and deliberation projects. As important, though, and as troubling at times, was how the tools (and debates) of deliberative democracy related to the distinctive challenges of climate change. In the next section, we look at how public deliberation encounters particular challenges, and holds particular potentials, when it comes to climate change.

The Challenge of Addressing Climate Change Through Public Deliberation

A recurrent challenge of developing robust climate policy is linking the scientific consensus on climate change with a concerted political effort about what to do in response. One view holds that scientific agreement should, in principle, facilitate concerted action by providing a baseline of shared information for all to follow. Most credible scientists agree that the Earth’s global temperature is rising and that climates are changing as a result of collective human activity. Furthermore, it is well documented that those scientists who challenge this consensus have ties to corporate and political interests that seek to maintain the profitability of fossil fuel industries (Oreskes and Conway 2010). Yet the scientific consensus on climate change—developed and communicated by global knowledge assessment institutions such as the IPCC—has not resulted in concerted political action and concern on the level many argue is needed to prevent dangerous climate change by the end of the twenty-first century.

For some commentators, the problem lies with ignorant and easily duped publics and policy makers who lack scientific literacy and therefore need to be better informed about the issue. This position has led to efforts to communicate climate science more straightforwardly to various constituencies. These efforts have not proven effective, in large part because of unexamined and questionable assumptions about public deficits of knowledge. As Susanne Moser and Lisa Dilling argue, a more comprehensive approach to political communication is warranted: “People in a democratic society are best served by actively engaging with an issue, making their voices and values heard, and contributing to the formulation of societal responses. . . . Effective communication serves two-way engagement, which—ultimately—enables societal action” (2010, 169).

Climate change is a complex issue with many different definitions and approaches. While current scientific consensus states that humans are influencing the climate, there remains much disagreement over how to make sense of climate change and what to do in response. Moreover, climate change is not only a scientific issue but also a deeply cultural, political, and ethical one (Hulme 2009). Significant disagreements exist among researchers across the sciences, social sciences, and humanities, as well as among activists and policy makers, about how to best interpret and act on climate change. These differences provide a much richer terrain of interpretation than is typically captured by attempts to divide the world into “believers” and “deniers.”

Deliberative democracy provides an attractive option for public engagement. The general agreement across varied positions is that citizens should have the right to voice their values and perspectives about climate policy and that policy makers need to defend their political decisions to those whose lives are affected by them. The deliberative turn in democratic theory highlights the significance of communication and reflection in political processes, so that democracy is not seen as simply the aggregation of preferences in order to inform decision making but is “also about processes of judgment and preference formation and transformation within informed, respectful and competent dialogue” (Dryzek 2006, 3).

Dryzek outlines why deliberative democracy can help environmental decision making in general and climate change in particular (2013, 13). First, deliberation can help integrate different perspectives. Second, the kinds of values that emerge from a deliberative setting can assist with prioritizing collective interests over material self-interest. Third, it can enable new ethical relations to emerge in that it expands the thinking of its participants to better encompass the interests of future generations, distant others, and non-human nature. Fourth, it can organize feedback on the condition of social-ecological systems into politics.

While this overview offers important links between deliberation and climate change, significant challenges arise in practical settings that complicate these aspirations. As noted, public deliberation differs from other forms of democratic engagement in that, ideally, it is inclusive of diverse communities and perspectives; in practice this is challenging. Some researchers argue that diversity, inclusion, and equity are not in fact central concerns for deliberative advocates and practitioners (Lee 2011), and we can see several reasons for this. As Leighninger (2010) describes, one explanation is that deliberative advocates tend to be mostly white and from relatively socially privileged groups, a point that was by and large true of the ABCD team. As discussed in chapter 6, ABCD struggled to break out of this circle, but with limited success. For example, repeated attempts in the first two years of the project to involve Indigenous people and communities were limited in their success. The reasons for this are not well understood. Given that climate change impacts social groups differently, questions of who has the privilege to frame debates and democratic processes are significant, and early decisions about subject matter and framing may themselves constrain which groups are interested in investing limited time and resources in deliberation projects.

As well, the tendency to focus on questions of process, design, and impact on policy can depoliticize public deliberation, including by downplaying structural hierarchies based on gender, class, and race (Lee 2011; Hendriks and Carson 2008). In convening citizen panels, a lot of ABCD’s efforts around social diversity related to recruiting for demographic representativeness (see chapter 4), though inclusion and representativeness are not necessarily equivalent.

Addressing the relationship between representativeness and inclusion is challenging in practice. Analyses of group-based hierarchy, inequality, and domination are often hard-won results of collective organizing and activism; addressing these within specific deliberations requires an engagement with the political character of group memberships, and the need to attend to and perhaps amplify the voices of marginalized groups or groups disproportionately affected by an issue. While individuals from particular groups may be important in bringing in group-based perspectives, formulating, articulating, and securing uptake for group-based perspectives is an importantly collective project; it may require that the design of deliberation support solidarity, collective analysis, and collective voice by members of marginalized communities, through mechanisms like oversampling in recruitment, creating separate spaces of deliberation for particular groups, and supporting caucusing within deliberations by particular groups (Kahane 2002; Blue, Medlock, and Einseidel 2012).

Recognition of these challenges does not diminish the significance of democratic representativeness. The demographic diversity of ABCD’s deliberations was important, and did shape outcomes. In the Citizens’ Panel on Edmonton’s Energy and Climate Challenges, for example, the class diversity of those in the room helped to bring issues of economic disadvantage and neighbourhood violence into discussion, and influenced recommendations, for example, around the need to attend to equity and public safety in supporting mixed-use, transit-oriented neighbourhoods. Yet bigger questions of structural inequality might have been addressed quite differently had we taken an alternative approach to group representation from the outset.

Another challenge is that emphasis on gearing deliberation toward policy and government decision makers meant that certain types of questions and policy responses could get framed out of discussion (see chapter 7). For example, although certain activist communities have tried to question whether existing political and economic structures (capitalism, for example) are contributing to climate change, these avenues of inquiry are not typically entertained by policy makers (and if they do entertain them, it can be politically dangerous for them to express such views publicly or professionally). During the time in which ABCD was active, groups like the Indigenous Environmental Network and scholars like Ian Angus actively raised questions about the relationship between climate change and existing economic structures. These more “radical” ideas were absent from or at the margins of educational materials and framing in ABCD’s deliberations, and invited experts and civil society speakers at the citizen panels did not represent such positions. Even where issues like the unequal distribution of carbon emissions or climate impacts globally were brought into educational materials—in the Citizens’ Handbook for the Edmonton Climate Panel, for example—they were not foregrounded in the carbon scenarios that framed the main choices made by panelists. Participants were free to bring alternative policy positions into deliberation, and some did (at the Citizens’ Panel on Edmonton’s Energy and Climate Challenges, for example). But the salience of alternative positions was limited by framing and by the choices foregrounded in the design of trajectories of conversation.

Geared toward pragmatic policy ends, formalized public deliberation can reinforce rather than question existing social structures, a point that has long been argued by critical theorists. Addressing climate change might well require fundamentally questioning existing social and political systems and examining trade-offs and opportunities presented by alternative policy proposals. Broader contexts of social power are often sidelined or naturalized in the design and conduct of deliberative exercises like those held by ABCD, and this has direct implications for how climate change is framed and on what political responses are treated as most salient.

Responding adequately to questions of social power in designing climate deliberations would, as the discussion above brings out, require a more politicized approach to group representation; more grassroots-up processes of framing; a different composition of project teams from an early stage; and strategies of influence not premised on partnership with policy makers, who often will constrain themselves (consciously as well as unconsciously) to pragmatic, mainstream solutions as opposed to the tangled and difficult work of raising critical questions about framing, influence, and power. There is a need for experimentation, innovation, and research on these alternative approaches, which can help to foster social learning on the part of policy makers, scientific experts, academics, and deliberation practitioners on their institutional and cultural biases and assumptions. Such reflexive self-questioning is challenging in practice and can encounter much resistance (Pallett and Chilvers 2013).

These challenges do not diminish the importance of public deliberation, but do signal its potential limits. Policy reform within existing social structures is important for addressing climate change, particularly as changes to existing laws, regulations, and institutional practices are important for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, for example through energy efficiency, support for renewables, and changes to urban form. Yet other spaces and modes of deliberation are needed to address how climate impacts, energy use, and climate justice are tied to more fundamental economic, social, and cultural structures; and the worry is that where these more fundamental structures go unaddressed, mainstream responses to climate change may treat symptoms rather than causes (Szeman and the Petrocultures Group 2016). Tensions between reforming existing systems and advocating for broader structural change are not easily resolved, and specific mini-publics should not be made to carry these burdens alone. This is a tension that informs not only debates about public deliberation but also about climate change more generally, and the tension merits a diversity of practical and pedagogical responses.

Conclusion

Public deliberation is debate and discussion aimed at producing reasonable, well-informed recommendations and plans for action, rooted in the values of participants. That simple description masks disagreement in the field, however, including tensions between bottom-up and top-down approaches to deliberation; how much influence deliberation needs to have in order to be legitimate; the fit between instances of deliberation and building deliberative societies; the places of emotion, narrative, and rhetoric in public deliberation; questions of framing; relationships between deliberation and activism; and how the professionalization of the field of public deliberation influences what happens on the ground. ABCD’s work tangled with all these disagreements.

There also is a tangled relationship between public deliberation and the challenges of climate change. Climate change can be framed in multiple ways, none of them innocent of power considerations: this points to the importance of inclusive, collaborative approaches to the issue, but also to why such approaches are so fraught. Diversity is not just about demographic representativeness: rather, it is about looking at relations of inequality, oppression, and marginalization between social groups. Perspectives on climate change are shaped by such memberships, and we have suggested that the design of climate deliberations needs to address power within and between social groups. The framing of climate deliberations also risks reiterating dominant narratives, and this may be aggravated when deliberations are oriented toward policy influence and political decision makers.

Public deliberation can lead to a “disturbance of everyday reasoning habits” as people are “jolted out” of the routine scripts that organize their lives (Ryfe 2005, 56–57). We have highlighted some of the political choices that enable deliberations on climate change to disturb everyday reasoning about climate change, or to reiterate it. Other chapters in this volume offer further reflections on the politics of climate change deliberation, the relationships of politics to process design, and how ABCD navigated these politics within multiple constraints.

Note

1. The authors of this section are academics who have connected deliberative democratic theory to practical projects. Gwendolyn Blue is a cultural geographer with research interest in public engagement with science and technology. She was a researcher and site organizer of World Wide Views on Global Warming, the first global scale public engagement initiative on climate change, and was academic lead on one of ABCD’s deliberations, Water in a Changing Climate. David Kahane is a political theorist specializing in deliberative democracy who spent seven years as a collaborator on a project studying the effectiveness of citizen participation as a means to pro-poor political outcomes in the global south (http://www.drc-citizenship.org). He was also the Project Director of Alberta Climate Dialogue, and one of the key designers of one of ABCD’s deliberations, the Citizens’ Panel on Edmonton’s Energy and Climate Challenges.

References

Adkin, Laurie, Lorelei Hanson, David Kahane, John Parkins, and Steve Patten. 2016. “Can Public Engagement Democratize Environmental Policy-Making in a Resource-Dependent State? Comparative Case Studies from Alberta, Canada.” Environmental Politics. doi:10.1080/09644016.2016.1244967.

Blue, Gwendolyn. 2015. “Framing Climate Change for Public Deliberation: What Role for the Interpretive Social Sciences and Humanities?” Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 18(1): 67–84.

Blue, Gwendolyn, and Jacquie Dale. 2016. “Framing and Power in Public Deliberation with Climate Change: Critical Reflections on the Role of Deliberative Practitioners.” Journal of Public Deliberation 12(1): art. 2. http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol12/iss1/art2.

Blue, Gwendolyn, Jennifer Medlock, and Edna Einseidel. 2012. “Representativeness and the Politics of Inclusion.” In Citizen Participation in Global Environmental Governance, edited by Richard Worthington, Mikko Rask, and Lammi Minna, 139–52. London: Earthscan.

Bohman, James. 1996. Public Deliberation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Chilvers, Jason, and Noel Longhurst. 2012. Participation, Politics, and Actor Dynamics in Low Carbon Energy Transitions. Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia Science Society and Sustainability.

Cornwall, Andrea, and John Gaventa. 2001. “From Users and Choosers to Makers and Shapers: Repositioning Participation in Social Policy.” IDS Working Paper 127. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies.

Dryzek, John. 2006. Deliberative Global Politics: Discourse and Democracy in a Divided World. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

———. 2013. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fishkin, James. 1997. The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Fung, Archon. 2003. “Survey Article: Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices and Their Consequences.” Journal of Political Philosophy 11: 338–67.

———. 2005. “Deliberation Before the Revolution: Towards an Ethics of Deliberative Democracy in an Unjust World.” Political Theory 33(2): 397–419.

Gaventa, John. 2006. “Finding the Spaces for Change: A Power Analysis.” IDS Bulletin 37: 6.

Gaventa, John, and Gregory Barrett. 2010. “So What Difference Does It Make? Mapping the Outcomes of Citizen Engagement.” IDS Working Paper 347. http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/Wp347.pdf.

Habermas, Jürgen. 1993. Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hendriks, Carolyn, and Lyn Carson. 2008. “Can the Market Help the Forum? Negotiating the Commercialization of Deliberative Democracy.” Policy Sciences 41: 293–313.

Hulme, Michael. 2009. Why We Disagree About Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kahane, David. 2002. “Délibération Démocratique et Ontologie Sociale.” La Démocratie Délibérative, Numéro spécial de Philosophiques 29(2): 251–86.

Kahane, David, Kristjana Loptson, Jade Herriman, and Max Hardy. 2013. “Stakeholder and Citizen Roles in Public Deliberation.” Journal of Public Deliberation 9(2): art. 2. http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol9/iss2/art2.

Kettering Foundation. 2011. “Naming and Framing Difficult Issues to Make Sound Decisions.” A Kettering Foundation Report. https://www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/product-downloads/Naming_Framing_2011-.pdf.

Lee, Caroline W., Michael McQuarrie, and Edward T. Walker. 2015. Democratizing Inequalities: Dilemmas of the New Public Participation. New York: New York University Press.

Lee, Carolyn. 2011. “Five Assumptions Academics Make about Public Deliberation, and Why They Deserve Rethinking.” Journal of Public Deliberation 7(1): art. 7. http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol7/iss1/art7.

———. 2015. Do-It-Yourself Democracy: The Rise of the Public Engagement Industry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leighninger, Matt. 2010. Creating Spaces for Change: Working Toward a ‘Story of Now’ in Public Engagement. Battle Creek, MI: Kellogg Foundation.

Lukensmeyer, Carolyn. 2012. Bringing Citizen Voices to the Table: A Guide for Public Managers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mansbridge, Jane, James Bohman, Simone Chambers, Thomas Christiano, Archon Fung, John Parkinson, Dennis F. Thompson, and Mark E. Warren. 2012. “A Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy.” In Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, edited by John Parkinson and Jane Mansbridge, 1–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Moser, Susanne, and Dilling, Lisa. 2010. “Communicating Climate Change: Closing the Science – Action Gap.” In The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, edited by John Dryzek, R.B. Norgaard, and D. Schlosberg, 161–74. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nabatchi, Tina, and Matt Leighninger. 2015. Public Participation for the 21st Century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Oreskes, Naomi, and Erik M. Conway. 2010. Merchants of Doubt. London: Bloomsbury Press.

Pallett, Helen, and Jason Chilvers. 2013. “A Decade of Learning about Publics, Participation, and Climate Change: Institutionalising Reflexivity?” Environment and Planning A 45(5): 1162–83.

Ryfe, David. 2005. “Does Deliberative Democracy Work?” Annual Review of Political Science 8: 49–71.

Szeman, Imre, and the Petrocultures Group. 2016. After Oil. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press.

Ulrich, Werner. 2005. “A Mini-Primer of Boundary Critique.” http://wulrich.com/boundary_critique.html.

Williams, Melissa. 1998. Voice, Trust, and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Young, Iris Marion. 2005. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.