Volume 20, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Local authorities in western societies increasingly initiate public participation processes despite criticism of these methods. To understand this development calls for in-depth studies of how the goals and values of public participation are articulated in practice. This paper analyzes the discursive legitimation strategies deployed by civil servants in twelve planning meetings for a participatory process aimed at mitigating violence in a Swedish suburb. The study draws on previous research on discursive legitimation, and presents the context-specific strategies of and . The analysis highlights that a core discursive tension in this practice arises from its need to seek mandate in the municipal structure, while the value discourses used to legitimize public participation build on a break from traditional bureaucracy. The study contributes to the broader literature on discursive legitimation in contemporary political contexts, with detailed empirical accounts of how a disputed practice is legitimized in interaction.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aggerholm, Helle Kryger, and Birte Asmuß
    2016 “A Practice Perspective on Strategic Communication: The Discursive Legitimization of Managerial Decisions.” Journal of Communication Management20 (3): 195–214. 10.1108/JCOM‑07‑2015‑0052
    https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-07-2015-0052 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alvesson, Mats, and Kaj Sköldberg
    2018Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. Los Angeles (CA): Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Amnå, Erik
    2006 “Playing with Fire? Swedish Mobilization for Participatory Democracy.” Journal of European Public Policy13 (4): 587–606. 10.1080/13501760600693952
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760600693952 [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, Rob, Leslie A. Baxter, and Kenneth N. Cissna
    2004Dialogue: Theorizing Difference in Communication Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 10.4135/9781483328683
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328683 [Google Scholar]
  5. Angouri, Jo, and Ruth Wodak
    2014 “‘They Became Big in the Shadow of the Crisis’. The Greek Success Story and the Rise of the Far Right.” Discourse & Society25 (4): 540–565. 10.1177/0957926514536955
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926514536955 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barbalet, Jack M.
    2001Emotion, Social Theory, and Social Structure: A Macrosociological Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Baumeler, Carmen
    2010 “Organizational Regimes of Emotional Conduct.” InEmotionalizing Organizations and Organizing Emotionsed by. Barbara Sieben, Åsa Wettergren. 272–292. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230289895_14
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230289895_14 [Google Scholar]
  8. Berger, Peter L., Thomas Luckmann, Thomas
    1967The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Black, Laura W.
    2015 “Dialogue”. InThe International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, ed. byKaren Tracy. 264–371. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi182
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi182 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bornemark, Jonna
    2016Medborgardialog – om det svåra i att mötas: Praktikers reflektioner om ett av demokratins viktigaste verktyg. Stockholm: Arkus.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Breit, Eric
    2014 “Remedy through Paradox? Constructions of Internal Legitimacy in a Publicly Discredited Organization.” Management Communication Quarterly28 (4): 585–608. 10.1177/0893318914548896
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318914548896 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bruning, Stephen D., Melissa Dials, and Amanda Shirka
    2008 “Using Dialogue to Build Organization–Public Relationships, Engage Publics, and Positively Affect Organizational Outcomes.” Public Relations Review34 (1): 25–31. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bächtiger, André, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren
    2018 “Deliberative Democracy: An Introduction.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, ed. byAndré Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren. 1–31: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Carpentier, Nico
    2014 “Participation as a Fantasy: A Psychoanalytical Approach to Power-Sharing Fantasies.” InMedia Practice and Everyday Agency in Europe, ed. byLeif Kramp, Nico Carpentier, Andreas Hepp. 319–330, Bremen: Edition lumière.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Codó, Eva
    2011 “Regimenting discourse, controlling bodies: Disinformation, evaluation and moral categorization in a state bureaucratic agency.” Discourse & society22 (6):723–742. 10.1177/0957926511411696
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511411696 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cornwall, Andrea
    2004 “Introduction: New Democratic Spaces? The Politics and Dynamics of Institutionalised Participation.” iDS Bulletin35 (2): 1–10. 10.1111/j.1759‑5436.2004.tb00115.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2004.tb00115.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Dybel, Pawel
    2015 “Rational Dialogue or Emotional Agon? Habermas’s Concept of the Public Sphere and Mouffe’s Project of Radical Democracy.” InDemocracy in Dialogue, Dialogue in Democracy: The Politics of Dialogue in Theory and Practice, ed. byKatarzyna Jezierska and Leszek Koczanowicz, 95–112, Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Erkama, Niina, and Eero Vaara
    2010 “Struggles over Legitimacy in Global Organizational Restructuring: A Rhetorical Perspective on Legitimation Strategies and Dynamics in a Shutdown Case.” Organization Studies31 (7): 813–839. 10.1177/0170840609346924
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609346924 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fairclough, Norman
    1992Discourse and social change. Vol.10. Cambridge: Polity press
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2003Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203697078
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203697078 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2013Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315834368
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315834368 [Google Scholar]
  22. Farkas, Kerrie R. H.
    2013 “Citizen (in) Action: The Limits of Civic Discourse in City Council Meetings.” Critical Discourse Studies10 (1): 81–98. 10.1080/17405904.2012.736702
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2012.736702 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fonseca, Pedro, and Maria João Ferreira
    2015 “Through ‘Seas Never Before Sailed’: Portuguese Government Discursive Legitimation Strategies in a Context of Financial Crisis.” Discourse & Society26 (6): 682–711. 10.1177/0957926515592780
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926515592780 [Google Scholar]
  24. Fung, Archon
    2015 “Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen Participation and its Future.” Public Administration Review75 (4): 513–522. 10.1111/puar.12361
    https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12361 [Google Scholar]
  25. Goodin, Robert E., and John S. Dryzek
    2006 “Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics.” Politics & Society34 (2): 219–244. 10.1177/0032329206288152
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329206288152 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hellquist, Alexander, and Martin Westin
    2019Medborgardialog om konfliktfyllda samhällsfrågor: konsensus, agonism eller mobilisering?Uppsala: Uppsala universitet.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Irvin, Renee A., and John Stansbury
    2004 “Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is it Worth the Effort?” Public Administration Review64 (1): 55–65. 10.1111/j.1540‑6210.2004.00346.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x [Google Scholar]
  28. Kalberg, Stephen
    2005Max Weber: Readings and Commentary on Modernity. Malden: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470773369
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470773369 [Google Scholar]
  29. Karlsson, Tom
    2019 “Public Administration in Transition: Studying Understandings and Legitimations amongst Middle Managers within a Government Agency.” Journal of Language and Politics18 (1): 107–130. 10.1075/jlp.17070.kar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17070.kar [Google Scholar]
  30. Karppinen, Kari, Hallvard Moe, and Jakob Svensson
    2008 “Habermas, Mouffe and Political Communication: A Case for Theoretical Eclecticism.” Javnost – The Public15 (3): 5–21. 10.1080/13183222.2008.11008973
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2008.11008973 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kranert, Michael
    2018 “Political Myth as a Legitimation Strategy.” Journal of Language and Politics17 (6): 882–906. 10.1075/jlp.17059.kra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17059.kra [Google Scholar]
  32. Krzyżanowski, Michał
    2010The Discursive Construction of European Identities: A Multi-level Approach to Discourse and Identity in the Transforming European Union. Frankfurt am Main: Lang
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Michels, Ank, and Laurens De Graaf
    2017 “Examining citizen participation: local participatory policymaking and democracy revisited.” Local Government Studies43(6):875–881. 10.1080/03003930.2017.1365712
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2017.1365712 [Google Scholar]
  34. Mirhosseini, Seyyed-Abdolhamid
    2017 “Discursive Double-Legitimation of (Avoiding) Another War in Obama’s 2013 Address on Syria.” Journal of Language and Politics16 (5): 706–730. 10.1075/jlp.16016.mir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.16016.mir [Google Scholar]
  35. Moisander, Johanna K., Heidi Hirsto, and Kathryn M. Fahy
    2016 “Emotions in Institutional Work: A Discursive Perspective.” Organization Studies37 (7): 963–990. 10.1177/0170840615613377
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615613377 [Google Scholar]
  36. Pateman, Carole
    2012 “Participatory Democracy Revisited.” Perspectives on Politics10 (01): 7–19. 10.1017/S1537592711004877
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592711004877 [Google Scholar]
  37. Rojo, Luisa Martin, and Teun A. Van Dijk
    1997 “‘There was a Problem, and it was Solved!’: Legitimating the Expulsion of Illegal Migrants in Spanish Parliamentary Discourse.” Discourse & Society8 (4): 523–566. 10.1177/0957926597008004005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008004005 [Google Scholar]
  38. Sarangi, Srikant, and Stefan Slembrouck
    1996Language, bureaucracy and social control. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Silverman, David
    2015Interpreting Qualitative Data. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. SOU 2000:1
    SOU 2000:1 2000En uthållig demokrati!: Politik för folkstyrelse på 2000-talet: Demokratiutredningens betänkande. Stockholm: Fritzes.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. SOU 2016:5
    SOU 2016:5 2016Låt fler forma framtiden!: Betänkande. Stockholm: Wolters Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Suddaby, Roy, and Royston Greenwood
    2005 “Rhetorical Strategies of Legitimacy.” Administrative Science Quarterly50 (1): 35–67. 10.2189/asqu.2005.50.1.35
    https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  43. Svensson, Jakob
    2008 ”Kommunikation, medborgarskap och deltagardemokrati : en studie av medborgarutskotten i Helsingborg”. PhD. Diss.Lund: Sociologiska institutionen
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Tahvilzadeh, Nazem
    2015 “Understanding Participatory Governance Arrangements in Urban Politics: Idealist and Cynical Perspectives on the Politics of Citizen Dialogues in Göteborg, Sweden.” Urban Research & Practice8 (2): 238–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Tracy, Karen
    2010 Challenges of Ordinary Democracy: A Case Study in Deliberation and Dissent. Vol.1. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Vaara, Eero, Janne Tienari, and Juha Laurila
    2006 “Pulp and Paper Fiction: On the Discursive Legitimation of Global Industrial Restructuring.” Organization Studies27 (6): 789–813. 10.1177/0170840606061071
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606061071 [Google Scholar]
  47. Vaara, Eero
    2014 “Struggles over Legitimacy in the Eurozone Crisis: Discursive Legitimation Strategies and their Ideological Underpinnings.” Discourse & Society25 (4): 500–518. 10.1177/0957926514536962
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926514536962 [Google Scholar]
  48. Van Leeuwen, Theo
    2007 “Legitimation in Discourse and Communication.” Discourse & Communication1 (1): 91–112. 10.1177/1750481307071986
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2008Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  50. 2016 “Discourse as the Recontextualization of Social Practice: A Guide.” InMethods of Critical Discourse Studies, ed. byRuth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 137–153. Los Angeles (CA): SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Van Leeuwen, Theo, and Ruth Wodak
    1999 “Legitimizing Immigration Control: A Discourse-Historical Analysis.” Discourse Studies1 (1): 83–118. 10.1177/1461445699001001005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445699001001005 [Google Scholar]
  52. Wiberg, Sofia
    2018 ”Lyssnandets praktik: Medborgardialog, icke-vetande och förskjutningar”. PhD diss.Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Wodak, Ruth, and Michael, Meyer
    2016Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. Los Angeles (CA): SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error