First Advisor

Sy Adler

Term of Graduation

Spring 2005

Date of Publication

5-20-2005

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Urban Studies

Department

Urban Studies

Language

English

Subjects

critical theories (dialectical critiques), appraisals (financial records), Valuation, Community development, Critical theory, Democracy, Evaluation, Homeowners' associations, Jürgen Habermas

DOI

10.15760/etd.8068

Physical Description

1 online resource (2, xi, 331 pages)

Abstract

How do deliberators reason together on what is best? Planners, policy analysts and community developers should know how to recognize the validity of participatory deliberations claimed to give groups voice in policy decisions. Policy analyses have lost power in the face of postmodern critiques of objectivity. Practical policy analyses require more than objective validity for they express results of what Jürgen Habermas refers to as normative rationality. This study followed John Forester's recommended research agenda for rigorous empirical analyses of policy process deliberations using Jürgen Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action. Three successful residential communities were identified with organizational and institutional characteristics meeting Habermas' criteria for organizational support of democratic discourse. Each was organized as a cooperative over twenty years before. All required formal processes for consensus on policy decisions. This research investigated their analytic criteria for process evaluation as they applied them in response to formal open-ended interview questions. Democratic deliberation necessarily elicits subjective and intersubjective assertions of validity in addition to objective assertions of fact and each type of validity is evaluated with different types of criteria. Detailed characteristics of Habermasian validity and discourse ethics are illustrated in discourse analyses of selected issues deliberated in each community. Concepts of Habermasian validity, their development and empirical application are also described. In conclusion, procedural rules for policy deliberation may protect otherwise marginal voices if all four types of validity claims are allowed to be challenged, reformulated, and revalidated. In this way, these communities' social experiments inform similar efforts of those working for greater citizen participation and civic capacity in urban and regional policy and planning. These communities are similarly involved with the design and development of social and institutionalized practices for participatory democracy. This cross-fertilization of theory and practice has the potential to offer a significant benefit to each.

Rights

In Copyright. URI: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/

This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).

Comments

If you are the rightful copyright holder of this dissertation or thesis and wish to have it removed from the Open Access Collection, please submit a request to pdxscholar@pdx.edu and include clear identification of the work, preferably with URL.

Persistent Identifier

https://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/38934

Download

Share

COinS