Facilitative researchers: how incorporating a relational

perspective can make policy-making more deliberative.

1. Introduction

Policymaking is a complex and multifaceted field. The relationships

and dynamics between the actors involved play a crucial role, particularly

when there are interdependent relationships and no obvious hierarchical

structure (Arrona et al., 2020). These interactions have an educational

dimension as they involve a dialectical process based on equal relationships

between the parties. The current study aims to investigate and clarify these

relational dynamics by examining the role of facilitative researchers.

Facilitative researchers catalyse social construction processes

through a relational perspective and promote the actors involved to think,

decide and act in the best possible conditions (Costamagna & Larrea, 2017).

This figure constitutes a possible response to the difficulty researchers

encounter when approaching policymaking from the perspective of

deliberative policy analysis (Bartels, Greenwood, et al., 2020; Bartels,

Wagenaar, et al., 2020). In line with their approach, the researchers aim to

challenge the linearity of knowledge and do not consider themselves as the

sole holders of knowledge. However, they face difficulties in legitimising this

role in policymaking. Costamagna and Larrea outline the necessary roles

and skills for facilitative researchers. They also present strategies and

conceptions such as relational leadership and self-reflection as tools to

respond to the challenge of legitimising the role of facilitative researchers.

However, there are still questions to be answered about the

development of this figure: How can one establish trustworthy relationships

way? What obstacles does a facilitative researcher encounter when fulfilling

the roles outlined by Costamagna and Larrea? Additionally, are there

supplementary skills or roles to those identified by Costamagna and Larrea

that enable a more profound comprehension of the profile of a facilitative

researcher?

This text outlines the development of the research problem of the

thesis that is being developed in this area. To this end, it first defines the

public policy perspective adopted by the author. This is followed by a brief

introduction to the field of political science and an explanation of the choice

of policy analysis as opposed to policy process research. After presenting

policy analysis, the essay moves on to deliberative policy analysis,

highlighting the main criticisms made in the literature to date: the linear

conception of knowledge and the difficulty of establishing new roles for

researchers. Action research for territorial development is then proposed as

a possible methodology to address these two criticisms through the

cogenerative model and facilitative researchers. Finally, the need to go

deeper into facilitative researchers is pointed out and an itinerary to go

deeper into the research questions is proposed. The text concludes by

pointing out the foreseeable implications of the thesis.

2. Public policies

The role of public policies in this thesis is empirical, as the cases are

developed in policy making environments. Therefore, addressing the

understanding of the concept of public policies in this thesis is fundamental

for comprehending the cases.

2
 In scientific literature, public policies are actions taken by a

government with the intention of achieving agreed-upon objectives (Peters,

1986; Klein & Marmor, 2006; Wilson, 2006; Cochran et al., 2011; Weible

2017). These objectives are collective in nature and impact the lives of

citizens (Peters, 1986; Dente and Subirats, 2014). Public policies encompass

the decisions made by governments on specific issues, the steps taken (or

not taken) to implement them, and the explanations provided for their

outcomes (Wilson, 2006, p.154).

In this thesis, I understand public policies as decisions and activities

linked with the solution of a collective problem (Dente y Subirats, 2014).

When making the decisions there will always be a government involved, so

that the decision is democratically legitimated. Collaborating with other

societal actors is common, as governments almost never make decisions on

their own (Enserink et al., 2013).

3. Policy Sciences

Policy Sciences literature traces the inception of the field back to 'The

Policy Sciences' authored by Harold Lasswell and Daniel Lerner in 1951.

Fischer (Fischer, 2003) highlights Lasswell's primary vision was centred on

establishing an applied social science dedicated to bridging the gap

between academia, decision-makers, and citizens. He advocated for

enhancing democracy by offering science-based, objective solutions to

societal issues, with the aim of reducing unproductive political debates.

Policy sciences can be defined as an applied and inherently

interventionist approach that offers a way to comprehend public policies

and generate policy-relevant information across various social science

3
domains, including political sciences, public administration, communication,

psychology, law, and sociology (deLeon & Vogenbeck, 2007; Lewin &

Shakun, 1976) and methods (Dunn, 2017). This information can be valuable

in political settings for addressing policy issues.

De Leon (2006) and De Leon and Vogenbeck (2007) identify three key

features of policy sciences: problem orientation, multidisciplinarity and a

value-based approach. Firstly, policy science is problem-oriented; its

primary goal is to provide recommendations for resolving public policy

issues. Policy issues are inseparable from their context, and each policy

study is intricately linked to its own unique context. Thus, the literature in

policy sciences is not as cohesive as a solid block of marble but more akin to

a collection of theoretical building blocks connected by shared methods,

concepts, and empirical work (Schlager, 1997 in Dunlop & Radaelli, 2013).

Additionally, much of the empirical work in this field is not necessarily

associated with a specific theoretical framework.

Secondly, it is exceedingly rare to encounter a social or political

problem that can be effectively addressed by a single academic field alone.

To provide a comprehensive analysis of such issues, it becomes imperative

to integrate perspectives from various academic disciplines. This call for

multidisciplinarity is underscored by the work of Lerner and Lasswell (1951).

Before their advocacy, societal problems were traditionally approached

solely within the confines of one discipline, resulting in incomplete solutions

and often rendering the field incapable of resolving the issue on its own. As

noted by Lewin and Shakun (1976), the core proposition of policy sciences is

to equip analysts with the skills necessary to draw from multiple disciplines,

fostering a holistic approach to problem-solving.

4
 Thirdly, the consideration and examination of values is key. No social

issue can be fully grasped without addressing the underlying values that

influence it. This principle extends to researchers as well, as they cannot

separate their personal values from their research endeavors (deLeon,

2006; deLeon & Vogenbeck, 2007).

Weible (2017) states that there is a division between Policy Analysis

and Policy Process Research within Policy Sciences. The author points out

that policy analysis is “the science and craft of providing client-oriented advice,

usually for a particular policy decision. […] Although there are exceptions, policy

analysis typically requires that the researcher become engaged, to some extent,

in affairs outside academia and deal with a problem of societal importance”

(Weible, 2017, p. 458). Whereas Policy process research aims to explain

political issues theoretically and descriptively, rather than making

recommendations about specific decisions. This is why the end goal of

policy process research is primarily academic in nature.

The next section will discuss policy analysis, as the epistemological

approach guiding this thesis is action research. Therefore, its aim is to

produce practical and contextual knowledge for researchers and

practitioners, rather than to develop theoretically sophisticated

formulations, which would be more in line with policy process research.

4. Policy Analysis

Policy analysis is a field within policy sciences that serves a dual

purpose: first, to enhance academic understanding of the policy-making

process, and second, to provide decision makers with pertinent and

authoritative knowledge regarding the economic and social issues that

5
governments must address (Fischer et al., 2007). Policy analysis is a

discipline involving numerous individuals who contemplate the role of

government in society and engage in continuous negotiations concerning

the relationship between individuals, collectives, and governments

(Mintrom & Williams, 2015). Essentially, policy analysis helps policymakers

think by presenting alternative approaches to public problems, identifying

the likely impacts of those alternatives, and recognising the trade-offs in

determining the most effective government response to the problem.

The main challenge in policy analysis is to establish a link between

knowledge and action (Enserink et al., 2013). Within the field, depending on

the view on whether knowledge should be adapted to practice or vice versa,

two approaches have been developed (Enserink et al., 2013): a technocratic-

scientific-expert approach, which aims to align policymaking with scientific

evidence; and a constructivist-pragmatist-relativist approach, which

suggests adapting science to the needs of policymaking. These two

approaches to bridging the gap between knowledge and action show

different perspectives on the nature of policymaking and knowledge.

The technocratic-scientific-expert perspective views policymaking as a

rational and orderly process. Enserink and colleagues argue that “Advisors to

policymakers should use the best available scientific knowledge and analytic

methods derived from mathematics, computer sciences, economics, social

sciences, in order to provide ‘optimal’ answers to complex societal problems”

(2013: 16). However, this approach faces difficulties in tackling challenges

that arise due to unforeseen and apparently irrational conduct of

individuals and groups within policy settings (Enserink et al. 2013). Such

intricacies are often simplified into constituent elements or variables that

6
can be analysed via a statistical or computer model. For example, Dunn

(2017) illustrates the rational-analytical approach in policy analysis, which

involves using tools such as cost-benefit analysis, impact analysis, trend

extrapolation, linear programming, and discrete event simulation. These

methods are objective and comprehendible, enabling clear communication

of data and logical structure. Precise technical terms are explained, and bias

is avoided through a balanced approach. Consistent formatting, citations,

and footnotes are adhered to, and the language is formal and

grammatically correct.

The constructivist-pragmatist-relativist approach posits that

policymaking is inherently chaotic and messy. This perspective

acknowledges the complex nature of the field, where diverse actors with

conflicting visions engage in discussions and negotiations to shape facts

and knowledge (Enserink et al. 2013). In this perspective, policymaking is a

dynamic space where relevant issues and actors are in a continuous state of

flux. This view of the nature of policy-making appears to have adopted the

viewpoint of wicked problems (Hajer & Wagenaar, 2003). Therefore, it is

believed that there are no ideal or perfect solutions, but instead consensus-

driven, negotiated, acceptable, and feasible solutions at a political level.

In a nutshell, and according to Mayer et al. (2013) and Eiserink et al.

(2013), research in policy analysis ranges from traditional research to

facilitated debates. The former provides empirical evidence for policy

formulation, whilst the latter aims at promoting democratic dialogue.

Additionally, to be a stakeholder in the process of policymaking, a scientific

figure - recognised as a knowledge holder - requires specific knowledge for

participation in knowledge-based discussions and negotiations. In view of

7
the wide range of policy analysis, there is also a need for diversity in the

skills of researchers that require skills ranging from discourse and

institutional analysis to mediation and facilitation (Costamagna & Larrea,

2017; Hajer & Wagenaar, 2003).

The nature of policies presented in this thesis aligns with Enserink et

al.'s (2013) view that policy creation is a chaotic and disorderly process

resulting from the interaction of many agents (Wagenaar & Wenninger,

2020). A fundamental idea underlies this thesis: The involvement of science

in policy making is crucial for creating spaces of confluence, as it is the basis

for generating actionable knowledge (Karlsen & Larrea, 2015) that can be

useful to policy makers. Heatwole et al (1976) noted that little had been

developed in terms of conceptualisation and methodology since Lasswell

and Lerner's proposal of policy sciences in 1951. At that time, they

proposed action research as a means of achieving this. Today, others like

Bartels and Wittmayer (2018), West et al. (2019), or Wittmayer et al. (2021)

have also taken that path through deliberative policy analysis. That is the

concept addressed in the following section.

5. Deliberative Policy Analysis

The constructivist-pragmatist-relativist approach points to the

interpersonal nature of policymaking. Even if the main outcome of a policy

is a formally written rule or a procedure, the process of creating it is mainly

driven by interactions between people representing the actors concerned,

or themselves individually. There are also many social problems that cannot

be solved without building consensus around them, known as wicked

problems (Hajer & Wagenaar, 2003).

8
 One of the approaches consistent with this idea is Deliberative policy

analysis. It was first articulated by authors promoting the argumentative

turn in policy analysis (Fischer and Forester, 1993; Fischer and Gottweis,

2012), influenced by the work of Habermas (1984) and named after the

homonymous book by Hajer and Wagenaar (2003). Deliberative policy

analysis is an alternative to mainstream technocratic policy analysis. The

main criticism is that it is not fulfilling its original promise of providing

usable knowledge for policy problem solving (Fischer, 2015). Technocratic

policy analysis prioritises empirical knowledge over the perspectives of

politicians and citizens. It is therefore seen as failing democratic principles

(Fischer & Bossabong, 2018).

Nonetheless, tracing Deliberative Policy Analysis in the literature

might seem confusing to the reader because the policy literature is an

amalgam of islands of conceptual bodies linked by methodological seas, as

Schlager (1997 in Dunlop & Radaelli, 2013) pointed out. Fischer &

Bossabong (2018) and Ercan et al. (2020) place it in deliberative democracy;

Hajer and Wagenaar (2003) note that it is one of many approaches in policy

analysis. Later, Bartels, Wagenaar and Li (2020) set it as an approach of

interpretive policy analysis. They also state that interpretive policy analysis

has developed into many strands, making it difficult to state what the value

of deliberative policy analysis is.

What is undoubtedly clear is that it focuses on the importance of

involving stakeholders in the public policy-making process (Hajer &

Wagenaar, 2003; Fischer & Bossabong, 2018). The main idea of deliberative

policy analysis is that public policies should be the result of a participatory

and deliberative process in which the voices and perspectives of

9
stakeholders are heard, and their concerns and needs are considered.

Bartels, Wagenaar and Li (2020) and Ercan et al. (2020) suggest that

deliberative policy analysis is a more inclusive and participatory approach to

policy analysis. This is better suited to some of the challenges that policy

makers face in today's dynamic and interconnected society.

In contrast to technocratic policy analysis, deliberative policy analysis

can strengthen democratic processes. According to Innes and Booher

(2003), it considers a broader variety of interests and increases openness to

new alternatives and possibilities while serving the public good. It

emphasizes on decision-making informed by citizens' and stakeholders'

practical experience and local knowledge, resulting to mutually beneficial

collaborative solutions (Innes & Booher, 2003). Furthermore, the process of

deliberative policy analysis promotes mutual trust and social capital

(Karlsen & Larrea, 2014). According to Togerson (2015) this is in line with

Lasswellian “policy sciences of democracy”.

Deliberative policy analysis is also seen as a research technique for

understanding the practices of new forms of governance in modern society

(Ercan et al., 2020; Hajer & Wagenaar, 2003). Collaborative conversation and

democratic deliberation are crucial to legitimising the transition from strong

government structures to more flexible, democratic, and accountable

forms. Deliberative policy analysis acknowledges that many problems are

too complex, contentious, and unstable to be addressed by top-down and

centralised governance systems (Fischer & Gottweis, 2012; Hajer &

Wagenaar, 2003). It therefore recognises modern value pluralism and

addresses real value conflicts through procedures that build consensus,

10
collective learning, and deliberative judgement (Hajer and Wagenaar

2003b).

There are three pillars in Deliberative policy analysis: an interpretive

approach, a pragmatic reasoning and deliberation (Bartels, Wagenaar, et al.,

2020; Hajer & Wagenaar, 2003). Having an interpretive approach means

that, in deliberative policy analysis, policymaking is a continuous give-and-

take of different meanings seeking to define social action. Pragmatic

reasoning is used to make judgements in policymaking, so decisions are as

much practice oriented as possible. This is an strategy to avoid getting

bogged down in endless cycles of reflection that end in conceptualisations

without effective impact on social problems. Language is essential to

deliberation as it constitutes the tool for discussion. So, creating shared

vocabularies, story lines and metaphors is inherent to the policymaking

process; as well as using tools to boost and foster dialogue (Karlsen and

Larrea, 2014; Costamagna and Larrea, 2017).

(LINKS)

11