Conceptual Diversity in the Empirical Research of Discursive Communication

(Paper proposed for Panel 6: Politics of Deliberation) Political theory’s deliberative turn has provided a family of concepts and theoretical arguments with which to make sense of, and assess, public communication. The goal of this paper is to clarify how these concepts have informed empirical research. To this end, research beyond the usual canon of studies and scholars associated with the empirical turn in deliberative theory is considered, including work in international relations, political sociology and social theory. The argument is made that there are at least two research models, which arise at the intersection of two different methodological approaches (i.e. variable-centred vs narrative approaches) and two understandings of the concept of discourse (i.e. the political theory conception and the social theory one). The standard, political theory approach regards discourse as a regulative ideal, with which to assess actual political communication and empirically identify cases of deliberation. As such, it identifies as deliberative those communicative interactions whose observable features closely approximate the regulative ideal of deliberation, in this way avoiding the risk of concept stretching. Furthermore, it adopts a co-variational explanatory template. In contrast, the narrative, social theory model sees discourse as a counterfactual ideal in the heads of participants in communication, which leads to a more complex and varied interpretation of the empirical phenomena that qualify as discursive. Besides, it assumes a narrative or sequential methodological perspective, consistent with its typical object of research, i.e. processes of ideational change or collective learning. These two models imply, then, different theoretical choices with different implications for empirical research.