This paper is focused on the study of public discourse in the field of environmental policy, using the approach of discursive institutionalism (DI). DI was initiated by Schmidt (2008) . and is treated as an umbrella approach, incorporating an interdisciplinary perspective on discourse analysis. By using DI in discourse research, it is possible to capture the process of politicization of needs and addressing of problems by the public and justifying them in state action (Kulawik, 2009). State action towards the environment is an example of a policy in which the role of framing social needs through ideas has a significant impact. Ideas are very important in the formulation of policies concerning the quality of life of society, they inform about the reasons for and shapes of individual behaviours (Campbell, 2004).

In the process of establishing ideas into policy discourse actors play a central role (Schmidt, 2016). In the research, DI is an approach to trace the influence that actors have on the normative or cognitive beliefs of other actors involved in the process of agreeing on ideas, so-called ideational power (Carstensen and Schmidt, 2016a: 318). Actors could be divided into three groups: 1) participants in a discourse in which they present their actions to each other and to the public in order to construct and legitimize their policies (Schmidt, 2002, p. 169); 2) sentient, i.e.. -thinking and -speaking agents, with the ability to generate ideas and to critique existing institutions in order to change them (Schmidt, 2010, p. 4); 3) carriers of cognitive and normative ideas, whose interactions allow institutional change to be explored (Schmidt., 2016, p. 2). When it comes to environmental policy, it is important who is speaking, with whom they are engaging in discourse and also where that discourse took place.

Based on these reflections three research question will be answered: Which types of actors are listed most frequently in environmental policy discourse? What are their actual configurations, i.e. with whom do the actor groups most often co-occur? What sources of information are used to describe their participation in public discourse?

In conducting research the analytical criteria in line with a systematic literature review (SLR) guided by PRISMA protocol (PRISMA-P Group et al., 2015) were applied. I examined 103 articles published between 2008 and 2020 in which DI was applied to discourse analysis. The 20 articles that analyzed the environmental issue were then extracted.

The preliminary results of the analysis indicate that environmental issues were the area that emerged most frequently in studies using DI. Members of government and experts appeared to be the most frequent actors in the discourse. Compared to other thematic areas of discourse, it also appears that a specifically frequent group of actors in discourse on environmental issues is business.

This research presents the characteristics of participants in the environmental policy discourse as well as filling a gap in methodological research on the use of DI. DI approach is a new research framework and its application has not yet been adequately explored and described in the literature. Due to the nature of the research, DI is situated as a qualitative method (Alasuutari, 2015) and the quantitative approach used may prove to be a significant limitation in understanding the complexity of the DI approach and the characteristics of actors.

References:

Alasuutari, P. (2015). The Discursive Side of New Institutionalism. Cultural Sociology, 9(2), 162–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975514561805

Campbell, J. L. (2004). Institutional Change and Globalization. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691216348

Carstensen, M. B., & Schmidt, V. A. (2016). Power through, over and in ideas: Conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3), 318–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1115534

Kulawik, T. (2009). Staking the Frame of a Feminist Discursive Institutionalism. Politics & Gender, 5(02), 262. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X0900021X

PRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

Schmidt, V. A. (2002). Does Discourse Matter in the Politics of Welfare State Adjustment? Comparative Political Studies, 35(2), 168–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414002035002002

Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 303–326. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342

Schmidt, V. A. (2010). Taking ideas and discourse seriously: Explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’. European Political Science Review, 2(01), 1. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175577390999021X

Schmidt, V. A. (2016). Reinterpreting the rules ‘by stealth’ in times of crisis: A discursive institutionalist analysis of the European Central Bank and the European Commission. West European Politics, 39(5), 1032–1052. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2016.1186389

This paper abstract presents an ongoing doctoral dissertation exploring the paradox of citizen participation within the neoliberal context, with particular attention to the challenges arising from the rapid transformation to e-participation due to the COVID-19 pandemic in a Local Public Administration in South Global. The study investigates how discourse on citizen participation often contrasts with the practical reality of limited involvement in public decision-making processes. This unplanned transition to e-participation generated consequences that should be analysed and understood. By examining the disjunction between theory and practice and the obstacles posed by the shift to e-participation, this research aims to uncover the factors contributing to the suppression of genuine citizen participation and propose strategies for fostering more inclusive and democratic public spheres in both physical and virtual settings.

The problem domain

Neoliberalism goes beyond "an ideology, a type of economic policy. It is a normative system that has expanded its influence worldwide, extending the logic of capital to all social relations and all spheres of life" [8]. In this sense, neoliberalism imposes a "single thought" in which it is believed that "capitalism is the natural state of society" [13], establishing as a rule that states adopt deregulation, privatization, and liberalisation as forms of public management. In this new rationale, there is a "deactivation of the democratic game" because neoliberalism "brings with it a very particular idea of democracy, which, in many respects, derives from an anti-democratization: private law should be exempt from any deliberation and any control, even in the form of universal suffrage" [8]. For Bourdieu [3]: "neoliberalism aims to destroy the social state, the left hand of the state (by which it is easy to show that it is the endorsement of the interests of the dominated, culturally and economically indigent, women, stigmatized ethnic groups, etc.)". Here, a key question arises for this work, for it is in this context, where certain groups are placed on the margins in the neoliberal system, that the belief in the compatibility of this system with the form and regime of democratic government continues. Democracy here emerges within a model in which representation prevails over participation. This places democracy as instrumental in this modeling [9, 10, 15].

A brief overview of related work

The theme of participation is not new in the literature, but even today, we cannot envision spaces for effective participation in Public Administrations, much is discussed about governance, transparency, and shared decisions, but the final decisions are still made by those who hold power [11, 16]. In contemporary literature, there is confusion between what is participation, social control, transparency, engagement, and collaboration. Making this distinction is crucial for analyzing public discourses and understanding whether they are talking about participation.

The literature shows that there is still imprecision regarding the concept of participation. In a study on the "academic production on social participation in Brazil" [11], this imprecision is brought up in several mapped studies. Another study shows the need to start a new conversation about the role of citizen participation in Public Administration, looking towards citizens to help solve problems but first finding ways to empower citizens as valuable partners in government work [16]. The gap this research aims to fill lies in the contribution to reflectively understanding citizen participation through the identification of "fields of power" and the relationships between agents and objective structures that generate practical actions.

Theoretical frameworks for your study

The study employs Bourdieu's social theory, particularly the theory of practice, as its primary theoretical framework [4–6, 14]. This approach allows for a comprehensive analysis of the dynamics of citizen participation in the public sphere within the neoliberal context. Bourdieu's theory of practice posits that social life is governed by a complex interplay of three key elements: habitus, capital, and field [4, 4, 5].

By applying Bourdieu's theory of practice, this research aims to explore the ways in which habitus, capital, and field interact to shape citizen participation in the public sphere. The study will investigate how neoliberalism influences the formation of habitus and the distribution of capital, ultimately affecting the rules and power dynamics within the field of public decision-making.

The research questions and methodological approach

The methodological course stems from Pierre Bourdieu's structuralist-constructivist perspective [2, 4]. Thus, Bourdieu seeks to reconcile structure with the action here. The methodological choice aligns with the idea that society's experiences are constructions of social reality [1]. The entire research development will follow the steps proposed by Bourdieu.

This research has the following general objective: Analyze how power structures act upon participation processes, transforming them into non-participation practices.

The question this dissertation project aims to answer is: How do power structures act upon participation processes, transforming them into non-participation practices?

Preliminary research results

Until this moment of the research, an ethnography of the council meetings was carried out, documents were collected, and eight interviews were carried out.

In this ethnographic-inspired study, a key observation made during the meetings was the absence of audience engagement, with streaming on YouTube with disabled comments. The initial online meetings were held privately, preventing civil society from exercising their right to participate. Furthermore, the online format has changed the way council members and the public can contribute to discussions, limiting the dialogue and reducing opportunities for replies. This shift has led to a parallel meeting among a few elected counselors via the Zoom chat, where society's concerns and opinions are discussed but remain undocumented and excluded from the formal minutes. This indicates that the real discussion from civil society is being partially ignored.

In addition, this study also incorporated data from interviews with council members. The analysis of these interviews revealed common concerns about the challenges and limitations of e-participation. The findings from these interviews, combined with the observations made during the online meetings, further emphasize the need for a more inclusive and democratic e-participation framework that effectively addresses the concerns of all citizens.