Suchergebnisse

Researchers may embody diverse roles in the development and analysis of democratic innovations. Based on three Belgian case studies (the G1000, the Permanent Citizen Dialogue and the Deliberative Committees) and more specifically on the reflections of three researchers (the authors of the present paper) who embodied mixed roles in the development and analysis of these processes, this paper sheds light on the motivations behind this blurring of lines between the traditional position of researchers as analysts and their new roles as advocates, advisers, designers and organizers. It also analyzes the effects of this situation on the researchers' work, on the processes implemented and on the other actors involved in their development. Also, we will see how the diversification of roles does not only affect researchers but expands on all actors involved in the design and organization of deliberative processes, from policy-makers to practitioners. **Please do not cite without authors' permission**

Researchers may embody diverse roles in the development and analysis of democratic innovations. Based on three Belgian case studies (the G1000, the Permanent Citizen Dialogue and the Deliberative Committees) and more specifically on the reflections of three researchers (the authors of the present paper) who embodied mixed roles in the development and analysis of these processes, this paper sheds light on the motivations behind this blurring of lines between the traditional position of researchers as analysts and their new roles as advocates, advisers, designers and organizers. It also analyzes the effects of this situation on the researchers' work, on the processes implemented and on the other actors involved in their development. Also, we will see how the diversification of roles does not only affect researchers but expands on all actors involved in the design and organization of deliberative processes, from policy-makers to practitioners. **Please do not cite without authors' permission**

Belgium is often portrayed as a textbook example of peaceful federalization. Indeed, while the country was for over a century a unitary state, it went through a deep process of federalization in a few decades of time to form a federal state where substate entities enjoy substantial autonomy. Today however, a rather new debate among political elites has emerged: whether to refederalize some of the powers that have been devolved to the substate entities, the Regions and Communities. Such an idea has long been a taboo in federal Belgium, especially among Flemish elites, but the debate seems now more open than ever. In this context, however, little is known about how citizens see this question. Of course, there is a long tradition of surveys including questions on federalism and autonomy devolution. Yet, more qualitative data are needed to understand what motivates citizens' preferences for more or less autonomy devolution in federal Belgium. The objective of this paper is to explore and compare citizens' preferences on the Belgian federalization process. In particular, we analyse what motivates the opinion of Belgian citizens in favour of more or less autonomy devolution. To this end, three citizen forums focusing on federalism and democracy over 100 participants were organized in 2017-2018: one in Liège in French, a second one in Antwerp in Dutch and a third one in Elsenborn in German. Their aim was to collect data on all three language communities with an original research design. For several hours, they informed themselves on the topic and discussed federalism and democracy in Belgium. These forums were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Our results suggest that their opinions are justified based on two major argumentative themes: identity and efficiency. While one would expect the former to be of traditional importance, our analysis revealed that considerations about efficiency have taken over the lead among the arguments that citizens use to justify their opinions towards most of the scenarios. This can above all be understood given the advanced stage of the Belgian federalization process, for which considerations of identity are still latently important but explicitly not sufficient enough anymore to justify further dynamics.

Belgium is often portrayed as a textbook example of peaceful federalization. Indeed, while the country was for over a century a unitary state, it went through a deep process of federalization in a few decades of time to form a federal state where substate entities enjoy substantial autonomy. Today however, a rather new debate among political elites has emerged: whether to refederalize some of the powers that have been devolved to the substate entities, the Regions and Communities. Such an idea has long been a taboo in federal Belgium, especially among Flemish elites, but the debate seems now more open than ever. In this context, however, little is known about how citizens see this question. Of course, there is a long tradition of surveys including questions on federalism and autonomy devolution. Yet, more qualitative data are needed to understand what motivates citizens' preferences for more or less autonomy devolution in federal Belgium. The objective of this paper is to explore and compare citizens' preferences on the Belgian federalization process. In particular, we analyse what motivates the opinion of Belgian citizens in favour of more or less autonomy devolution. To this end, three citizen forums focusing on federalism and democracy over 100 participants were organized in 2017-2018: one in Liège in French, a second one in Antwerp in Dutch and a third one in Elsenborn in German. Their aim was to collect data on all three language communities with an original research design. For several hours, they informed themselves on the topic and discussed federalism and democracy in Belgium. These forums were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Our results suggest that their opinions are justified based on two major argumentative themes: identity and efficiency. While one would expect the former to be of traditional importance, our analysis revealed that considerations about efficiency have taken over the lead among the arguments that citizens use to justify their opinions towards most of the scenarios. This can above all be understood given the advanced stage of the Belgian federalization process, for which considerations of identity are still latently important but explicitly not sufficient enough anymore to justify further dynamics.

To date, research on gender and political representation has predominantly centered on women. The assumption that men as a privileged group automatically gain representation is nevertheless problematic. Not only are some (dominant) groups of men better represented than others, we simply do not know what men's interests are. Up until today, however, no study has actually explored the nature of men's interests in an empirical way. This paper offers a first attempt to conceptualize and operationalize the notion of men's interests in empirical research. Based on new and original data from the 2014 PARTIREP voter survey organized in Belgium on the occasion of the 2014 federal and regional elections, we study men and women along political themes, their political visions and their voting behavior. The main question that guides our research is the following: What do gender differences in political themes and visions tell us about male (and female) interests in politics? Next to offering empirical insights into women and men's political interests, this paper also provides a theoretical contribution to broader debates on group interests. We reflect on our observation that men and women attach importance to the same political themes but have different visions about them, and what this teaches us about "male interests" and "female interests". We also launch a call for new empirical and theoretical research into men and their interests in politics.

To date, research on gender and political representation has predominantly centered on women. The assumption that men as a privileged group automatically gain representation is nevertheless problematic. Not only are some (dominant) groups of men better represented than others, we simply do not know what men's interests are. Up until today, however, no study has actually explored the nature of men's interests in an empirical way. This paper offers a first attempt to conceptualize and operationalize the notion of men's interests in empirical research. Based on new and original data from the 2014 PARTIREP voter survey organized in Belgium on the occasion of the 2014 federal and regional elections, we study men and women along political themes, their political visions and their voting behavior. The main question that guides our research is the following: What do gender differences in political themes and visions tell us about male (and female) interests in politics? Next to offering empirical insights into women and men's political interests, this paper also provides a theoretical contribution to broader debates on group interests. We reflect on our observation that men and women attach importance to the same political themes but have different visions about them, and what this teaches us about "male interests" and "female interests". We also launch a call for new empirical and theoretical research into men and their interests in politics.