Search

Much literature on deliberation is derived from ideal theory. However, deliberations are inevitably non-ideal in two ways: (1) many deliberative ideals are in tension with each other; and 2) intended balancing of ideals cannot be attained perfectly amidst the messiness of real-world recruitment and conversation. This essay explores both kinds of non-ideality in respect to a case study: the 2011 community deliberative processes on a state public health “biobank,” the Michigan BioTrust for Health. We follow two recommendations from major contemporary theorists of deliberation: to be transparent about how competing deliberative goals are negotiated in deliberative design; and to publicize case studies that report associated struggles and results. We present our “hybrid design” that sought to negotiate tensions within three families of deliberative goals: goals of representation and inclusion; goals of discourse-framing; and goals of political impact. We offer deliberative facilitators tentative suggestions based on this case study, concluding deliberations need not be “ideal” to be transformative.