In order to understand how mutual understanding was achieved in discursive interactions between the welfare service users and service practitioners, conversation analysis was conducted in four discussion panels set up for building consensus on the appropriate structure for user participation in service management. Conversations in eight panel discussion meetings were audio-taped for analysing the talks-in-interaction therein. Drawing on the conversation analysis, the article uncovers the dynamics of consensus building among participants from different epistemic communities.
Findings
The study identifies the extent of divergence in views among stakeholders, which could have been obscured by the pressure to acquiesce in platform of face-to-face coordination. In the contest for truth between the welfare service users and service practitioners, personal experience has not been accepted as legitimate resource for supporting truth claims. Having limited argument resources on issues of service management, the welfare service users perceived argumentation in panel discussion a threatening venture that they chose to avoid. Avoidance was also a strategy that panel participants employed to maintain mundane interactions in the face of looming dissents. The article argues that the Habermasian communicative ethics are not panacea to the problem of coordination between the welfare service users and service practitioners. An agonistic model of democracy is called for to shift the objective of communication from gauging consensus to encouraging articulation of disagreements in the intricate user participation project.
Application
The article provides a new direction for developing the user participation imperative to address necessary pluralities among stakeholders of welfare services.
AguinaldoJ. P. (2012).
Qualitative analysis in gay men’s research: Comparing thematic, critical discourse, and conversation analysis.Journal of Homosexuality,
59(6), 765–787. doi:10.1080/00918369.2012.694753
2.
BarryC. A.StevensonF. A.BrittenN.BarberN.BradleyC. P. (2001).
Giving voice to the lifeworld. More humane, more effective medical care? A qualitative study of doctor-patient communication in general practice.Social Science & Medicine,
53(4), 487–505. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00351-8
3.
BaumeisterA. T. (2003).
Habermas: Discourse and cultural diversity.Political Studies,
51(4), 740–758. doi:10.1111/j.0032-3217.2003.00456.x
4.
BessK. D.PrilleltenskyI.PerkinsD. D.CollinsL. V. (2009).
Participatory organizational change in community-based health and human services: From tokenism to political engagement.American Journal of Psychology,
43(1–2), 134–148. doi:10.1007/s10464-008-9222-8
5.
BorgM.KarlssonB.KimH. S. (2009).
User involvement in community mental health services – Principles and practices.Journal of Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing,
16(3), 285–292. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2850.2008.01370.x
6.
BrownJ.DillardJ. (2013).
Critical accounting and communicative action: On the limits of consensual deliberation.Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
24(3), 176–190. doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2012.06.003
7.
BrownP. (2011).
The concept of lifeworld as a tool in analyzing health-care work: Exploring professionals’ resistance to governance through subjectivity, norms and experiential knowledge.Social Theory & Health,
9(2), 147–165. doi:10.1057/sth.2011.3
8.
CornwallA.GaventaJ. (2000).
From users and choosers to markers and shapers – Repositioning participation in social policy.IDS Bulletin,
31(4), 50–62. doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2000.mp31004006.x
9.
DelantyG. (1999). Social theory in a changing world: Conceptions of modernity.
Cambridge, UK;
Malden, MA: Polity.
10.
DrewP. (2013). Turn design. In SidnellJ.StiversT. (Eds), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 131–149).
Chichester, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
11.
EdgarA. (2006). Habermas: The key concepts.
New York:
Routledge.
12.
EstradaR. D.ReynoldsJ. F.Hilfinger MessiasD. K. (2015).
Conversation analysis of verbal interactions and social processes in interpreter-medicated primary care encounters.Research in Nursing & Health,
38(4), 278–288. doi:10.1002/nur.21660
13.
FordC. E. (2012).
Clarity in applied and interdisciplinary conversation analysis.Discourse Studies,
14(4), 507–513. doi:10.1177/1461445612450375
14.
Foucault, M. (1988). The ethic of care for the self as a practice of freedom. In Bernauer, J. and Rasmussen, D (eds.), The Final Foucault (pp. 1–20). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
GarrettP. M. (2009).
Questioning Habermasian social work: A note on some alternative theoretical resources.British Journal of Social Work,
39(5), 867–883. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcn026
16.
GaventaJ.CornwallA. (2006).
Challenging the boundaries of the possible: Participation, knowledge and power.IDS Bulletin,
37(6), 122–128. doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2006.tb00329.x
17.
GaynorN. (2014).
The tyranny of participation revisited: International support to local governance in Burundi.Community Development Journal,
49(2), 295–310. doi:10.1093/cdj/bst031
18.
GilbertT.PowellJ. L. (2010).
Power and social work in the United Kingdom: A Foucauldian excursion.Journal of Social Work,
10(1), 3–22. doi:10.1177/1468017309347237
19.
GodinP.DaviesJ.HeymanB.ReynoldsL.SimpsonA.FloydM. (2007).
Opening communicative space: A Habermasian understanding of a user-led participatory research project.The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology,
18(4), 452–469. doi:10.1080/14789940701470283
HabermasJ. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society.
London, UK:
Heinemann.
22.
HabermasJ. (1984). The theory of communicative action (Volume 1) – Reason and the rationalization of society (translated by McCarthy, T.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
23.
HabermasJ. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action (C. Lenhardt & S. W. Nicholsen, Trans.).
Cambridge, UK:
Polity Press.
24.
HabermasJ. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.).
Cambridge:
MIT Press.
25.
HabermasJ. (1998). Action, speech acts, linguistically mediated interactions, and the lifeworld. In HabermasJ.CookeM. (Eds), On the pragmatics of communication (pp. 215–256).Cambridge:
MIT Press.
26.
HansenT.HatlingT.LidalE.RuudT. (2004).
The user perspective: Respected or rejected in mental health care?Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing,
11(3), 292–297. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2850.2003.00717.x
27.
HayesD.HoustonS. (2007).
‘Lifeworld’, ‘system’ and family group conferences: Habermas’s contribution to discourse in child protection. British Journal of Social Work,
37(6), 987–1006. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23722650
28.
HeritageJ. (2013). Epistemics in conversation. In SidnellJ.StiversT. (Eds), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 370–394).Chichester, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
29.
HickeyS.MohanG. (2004). Towards participation as transformation: Critical themes and challenges. In HickeyS.MohanG. (Eds), Participation: From tyranny to transformation (pp. 3–24).London, UK:
Zed Books.
30.
HillierJ. (2003).
Agonizing over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be real.Planning Theory,
2(1), 37–59. doi:10.1177/1473095203002001005
31.
HodgeS. (2005).
Competence, identity and intersubjectivity: Applying Habermas’s theory of communicative action to service user involvement in mental health policy making.Social Theory & Health,
3(3), 165–182. doi:10.1057/palgrave.sth.8700055
32.
HodgeS. (2009).
User involvement in the construction of a mental health charter: An exercise in communicative rationality?Health Expectations,
12(3), 251–261. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00561.x
33.
LeungT. T. F. (2011).
Client participation in managing social work service – An unfinished quest.Social Work,
56(1), 43–52. doi:10.1093/sw/56.1.43
34.
LeungT. T. F.LamB. C. L. (2014).
Challenges in partnership with the mental health service users in service planning and management.Human Service Organizations Management, Leadership & Governance,
38(4), 320–335. doi:10.1080/23303131.2014.896298
35.
MartireJ. (2012).
Habermas Contra Foucault: Law, power and the forgotten subject.Law Critique,
23(2), 123–139. doi:10.1007/s10978-012-9099-4
36.
McCarthyT. (1986). Translator’s Introduction. In HabamasJ. (Ed.), The theory of communicative action (Volume 1) – Reason and the rationalization of society (pp. vii–xxxix).
Cambridge, UK:
Polity Press.
NiemiJ. I. (2005a).
Habermas and validity claims.International Journal of Philosophical Studies13(2), 227–244. doi:10.1080/09672550500080462
40.
NiemiJ. I. (2005b).
Jurgen Habermas’s theory of communicative rationality: The foundational distinction between communicative and strategic action. Social Theory and Practice,
31(4), 513–532. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract200531424
41.
O’NeillJ. (2002).
The rhetoric of deliberation: Some problems in Kantian theories of deliberative democracy. Res Publica,
8(3), 249–268. doi:10.1023/A:1020899224058
42.
PsathasG. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction.
Thousand Oaks, CA; London, UK; New Delhi, India:
Sage Publications.
43.
RescherN. (1993). Pluralism: Against the demand for consensus.
Oxford, UK; New York:
Clarendon Press.
44.
ScharpK. (2003).
Communication and content: Circumstances and consequences of the Habermas-Brandom debate.International Journal of Philosophical Studies,
11(1), 43–61. doi:10.1080/0967255032000050439
45.
SidnellJ. (2013). Basic conversation analytic methods. In SidnellJ.StiversT. (Eds), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 77–99).Chichester, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
TrishaG.RobbN.ScamblerG. (2006).
Communicative and strategic action in interpreted consultations in primary health care: A Habermasian perspective.Social Science & Medicine,
63, 1170–1187. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.03.033
48.
White Stephen K, Farr Evan R. (2012). “No-Saying” in Habermas, Political Theory, 40(1), 32–57.
