Public Meeting Discourse

Abstract

Public meetings are sites for democratic participation and deliberation on issues facing a municipality. In the North American context, the New England Town Hall meeting epitomizes this democratic ideal. Such meetings are a place where ordinary folks can get up on their feet, have their say, and possibly influence the town's decision. Not surprisingly, what transpires at public meetings often falls short of these ideals or mythos of democracy. The gap between the ideal and the realities of public meetings has led to calls for empirical studies of citizen participation and deliberation. A language and social interaction ( LSI ) approach seems especially well suited for studies of public meetings given the focus on talk as social action and interaction. This discursive turn to actual communicative practices as embodied in participants' discourse has been called “ordinary democracy.”

Cultural Discourses of Public Engagement: Insights for Energy System Transformation

“…Despite the framing that council is interested in hearing from the public, statements made during public comments sessions prompt limited, if any, individual interaction between the council and the public; immediate uptake (e.g., acknowledges, responds to, and/or asks follow-up questions) is rare, occurring in instances in which a new perspective is offered or technical information requires clarification. These patterns broadly fit the observations in the literature on public participation within public meetings (see Buttny & Cohen, 2015). Within Boulder, we noticed one practice that differed from many public meetings: a tendency for people to begin their statements by credentialing themselves as representing organizations and groups.…”

“…The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 contributes to these patterns since it institutionalized public participation efforts in environmental planning and impact statement development without stipulating necessary forms (e.g., public deliberation or consensus processes) of involvement (Kinsella, 2004), leaving it up to individual agencies to develop whatever they take to be effective public participation efforts. As a result, mandated agencies tended to adopt the model of the public hearing, which has become the institutionalized standard; however, the public hearing model is notorious for creating distance between parties and limiting diverse stakeholder input, contributing to conflict-ridden interactions and adversarial positioning (Walker, 2004;Wills Toker, 2004;Senecah, 2004;Buttny & Cohen, 2015). Moreover, scholars recognize that simply having opportunities for participation does not mean that participation is effective, meaningful, or even given credence in environmental decision-making processes (Depoe & Delicath, 2004).…”

8. Rekonstruktive Verfahren

“…Bergmann 2000;Günthner 2000;Huynh 2016;Keppler 1995;Knipp 2016;Meier zu Verl 2016;Meiler 2016) und auf Redewiedergaben (vgl. Butterworth 2015Buttny & Cohen 2007;Clift 2007;Coulmas 1986;Couper-Kuhlen 2007;Günthner 2005 13 ;Holt 2007;Semino & Short 2004;Tannen 1989Tannen /2007. Einige dieser für die Analyse besonders relevanten rekonstruktiven Verfahren werden im Folgenden vorgestellt und mit Blick auf ihre kontextspezifische Ausformung und Funktion ergänzt und weiterentwickelt.…”

Withholding consent

“…Public involvement is frequently presented as a democratic solution to the management of social issues with a major scientific or technological component, such as health or environmental problems. Yet, rather than being on equal footing with officials and experts in these public meetings, citizens typically have the less influential role of information receiver or provider of "lay opinions" (Boholm 2008;Buttny and Cohen 2015;Carvalho, Pinto-Coelho, and Seixas 2019). In contrast, officials and experts often have a more influential role and decisive voice as they have first access to "the facts" and determine what topics get addressed (Buttny andCohen 2007, 2015).…”

“…The high value attached to technical-scientific facts in public meetings may result in a crucial inequity between experts and citizens. Scholars have noted that citizens will never possess the same kind of authority as experts to challenge or question technical-scientific claims because they are not in the position to draw upon "the same networks of support for their claims" (Myers 2003: 269; see Buttny and Cohen 2015;Felt et al 2009;Kerr, Cunningham-Burley, and Tutton 2007;Mogendorff et al 2014;Sprain and Reinig 2018). In general, the formats of these public meetings create a clear 'divide and power' difference between citizens as audience, and officials and experts as in charge of the meeting (Black, Leighter, and Gastil 2009).…”