The Research Group for Governmental Communication has carried out a trend study of governmental communication within The Netherlands (1). Research topics were: the major tasks for communication, current issues, profiling the communication department, and policy plans for communication. Another study focused on quality control as a management function for the communication department (2). A tool was developed to measure the communication quality of governmental organisations. Looking back on the results of both studies we asked ourselves the question: How can the academic field pursue the research of communication practice in governmental organisations and then support this field with results? The article focuses on governmental communication in The Netherlands, but the results might also be interesting for researchers and communication experts in governmental communication in other countries. The author argues that the priorities in the research agenda within the field of governmental communication should include: monitoring methods, quality control and accountability.
The article engages with the recent studies on multilevel regulation. The starting point for the argument is that contemporary multilevel regulation—as most other studies of (postnational) rulemaking—is limited in its analysis. The limitation concerns its monocentric approach that, in turn, deepens the social illegitimacy of contemporary multilevel regulation. The monocentric approach means that the study of multilevel regulation originates in the discussions on the foundation of modern States instead of returning to the origins of rules before the nation State was even created, which is where the actual social capital underlying (contemporary) rules can be found, or so I wish to argue. My aim in this article is to reframe the debate. I argue that we have an enormous reservoir of history, practices, and ideas ready to help us think through contemporary (social) legitimacy problems in multilevel regulation: namely all those practices which preceded the capture of law by the modern State system, such as historical alternative dispute resolution (ADR) practices.
To elucidate how authoritative knowledge is established for better dealing with unstructured urban problems, this article describes how collaborations between researchers and officials become an instrument for conceptualizing and addressing policy problems. A case study is used to describe a research consortium evaluating the controversial practice of ‘Lifestyle’ based housing allocation in the Dutch domain of social-housing. Analyzing this case in key episodes, we see researchers and policymakers selectively draw on established institutional practices—their so called ‘home practices’—to jointly (re-)structure problems. In addition, we find that restructuring problems is not only intertwined with, but also deliberately aimed at (re-)structuring the relations within and between the governmental practices, the actors are embedded in. It is by selectively tinkering with knowledges, values, norms, and criteria that the actors can deliberately enable and constrain the ways a real-world problem is addressed.
