In Praise of Exclusion

Dovi, Suzanne

doi:10.1017/s0022381609090951

Cited by 46 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As political scientist Suzanne Dovi puts it, 'Not only do some voices need to be brought in, some voices need to be muted'. 25 Given the findings from this study that representative patient trustees are less likely to hold leadership positions on the board, in conjunction with earlier findings that when representative patients do hold board leadership positions, it can positively affect service provision, 26 policies to strengthen the patient governance provision and its implementationperhaps mandating a certain proportion of representative patients or requiring at least one representative patient trustee on the executive committeeshould be considered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do patients have a voice? The social stratification of health center governing boards

Wright

2013

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context To ensure community responsiveness, federally qualified health centres (FQHCs) in the United States are required to be governed by a patient majority. However, to the extent that these patient trustees resemble the typical low-income patients served by FQHCs, status generalization theory suggests that they will be passed over for leadership positions within the board in favour of more prestigious individuals.Methods Using 4 years of data on health centre governing boards obtained from the Health Resources and Services Administration via a Freedom of Information Act Request, the likelihood of holding executive committee office is modelled as a function of trustee characteristics using Chamberlain's conditional logistic regressions. ResultsThe results indicate that representative patient trustees are significantly less likely than other trustees to hold a position on the executive committee or serve as board chair.Conclusions Given the power of the board leadership to set the agenda, the reduced likelihood of representative patient trustees serving in leadership positions may ultimately limit the representative voice given to patients, making FQHCs potentially less responsive to their communities. These findings also have important implications for other settings where engaging and empowering patients is sought.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…Privileged groups may need to be excluded from representation to varying degrees so that the voices of the disadvantaged might actually be heard and acted upon. As political scientist Suzanne Dovi puts it, ‘Not only do some voices need to be brought in, some voices need to be muted’ …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do patients have a voice? The social stratification of health center governing boards

Wright

2013

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If they have not naturalized, they are formally excluded from the constituency that gives its consent to be governed, but they are bound by decisions that voters and elected officials make, and their very presence can affect the routes by which policies are enacted (Schildkraut 2001;Preuhs 2005). Theoretical approaches to representative democracy often contend that all competent adults affected by a government's policies should be considered in policymaking (see, for example, Walzer 1983;Goodin 1988;Dahl 1991;Dovi 2009). As Iris Marion Young (2000, 5-6) puts it, "the normative legitimacy of a democratic decision depends on the degree to which those affected by it have been included in the decision making processes and have had the opportunity to influence the outcomes."…”

Section: Why Study Immigrant Attitudes About Representation?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The complicated constituency: a study of immigrant opinions about political representation

Schildkraut

2013

Politics, Groups and Identities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-naturalized immigrants cannot vote in the United States, but they are included in apportionment and elected officials craft policies that affect them. Representatives are thus, according to many scholars, obligated to represent their needs and interests. The question this study investigates is how immigrants feel about representative democracy in the United States.To what extent is their perspective on American-style representation shaped by their status as immigrants or ethnic minorities? Or are their assessments and the reasons for them similar to those of whites and citizens (i.e. that "special interests" dominate politics)? This study examines these questions through focus group discussions with Latino immigrants and with non-Hispanic native-born whites. Results highlight similarities in attitudes about representation among both groups but also areas in which immigrants are more pessimistic and even optimistic. Results also show that immigration is central to the participants' social identity when they assess political representation. Their identity as immigrants was routinely invoked, while their identities as Latinos, Salvadorans, Peruvians, or as Spanish speakers was not.

show abstract

“…While most institutional designs will include directly interested parties or their representatives, someparticularly those such as minipublics comprised of representative samples of a relevant public -will prioritize impartiality, usually by excluding directly interested parties, permitting their inclusion only as advocates who state their cases before a deliberative body composed of less interested participants, much like a courtroom jury (Warren and Gastil 2015). Similarly, some kinds of processes might even exclude powerful actors as participants if their presence threatens to oppress or sustain the oppression of others (Dovi 2009).…”

Section: Normative Implications Of Countervailing Powermentioning

confidence: 99%