Decision-making in complex, highly institutionalised environments, such as the Council of the EU, encompasses many practices related to the conduct of negotiations. It is also essentially about storytelling and narrating: representatives narrate interests, policy positions, actions, attitudes, results of negotiations and decisions taken. Both practices and narratives are inherently relational – they cannot exist otherwise.
This paper explores some theoretical and methodological facets of practice-oriented research, with special focus on its relational and narrative aspects. Practices in intergovernmental decision-making can be performed more or less competently; they can ensure continuity or express change; there might be tensions and contradictions between them. Here, I focus on ways in which thinking in terms of relations rather than entities, and studying stories and narratives help explore the understandings, tensions, and decision-making consequences of the practices of consensus in the Council of the European Union.
I argue that the performance of a practice is always relational and context-dependent – in particular regarding the evaluation of its competence and what it brings about. Moreover, the paper shows that narratives are closely related to the understanding of practices. I ask where we can find narratives relevant to the decision-making practices and how we can combine narrative analysis with practice theory. I try to show how analysing narratives and noticing narrative tension provides clues regarding the conflicts, hierarchies, and hidden power structures within ostensibly cooperative, consensus-based environments. Finally, as an empirical illustration, I turn to the case of the practice of consensus. I show how the somewhat eclectic methodological apparatus developed in the paper can help us understand one of the issues related to the promises of practice turn: the notion of "competent performance" of a practice.
