This article explores the use of interpretive methodologies to study civil society networks within the field of third sector research. Interpretive methodologies situate reality as both socially constructed and negotiated and seek to understand meaning and meaning-making practices, which from a critical perspective act as forces of and derivatives of power relations. In particular, we develop the concept “interpretive engagement” to highlight a common but broadly defined focus of study in relation to civil society networks and use it as an illustrative example for highlighting the value of interpretive methods—specifically those that focus on discourses and discursive practices as forms of meaning-making—for advancing scholarship in the field of third sector research. Drawing on research in the field that employs interpretive methodologies and techniques to understand such practices, our interpretive engagement concept demonstrates how interpretive methods can address neglected areas of study in relation to the expressive functions of organized civil society.

Governance networks typically function in the absence of clearly defined constitutional rules. Network actors, therefore, have to develop a common understanding of the problem as well as build a basis for mutual trust. We suggest that discourse-analytical and dramaturgical concepts can be helpful instruments to analyse these dynamics of trust building in governance networks.

In this article, we investigate the changes in the legitimating accounts used by Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), in the context of spreading managerialism—one of the most powerful institutional practices of our time—in the Third Sector. We first introduce the concepts of legitimacy and legitimating account, before showing how managerialism manifests itself in CSOs and presenting three managerialist accounts used to legitimate such organizations: efficiency and effectiveness (E&E), stakeholder’s needs, and innovation. We then examine empirically how the use of these accounts changed between 1995 and 2008. In order to do so, we analyze quantitatively the contents of a sample of annual reports produced by Austrian CSOs over the stated period, and apply discourse analysis to a smaller group of reports to reveal more fine-grained developments. Our results show significant changes: of our chosen accounts, the one most tightly linked with managerialism, E&E, had come to be taken-for-granted by 2008, whereas the more generic and subtle concepts of stakeholder’s needs and innovation featured more strongly than in 1995.

How does the European Union integrate new values into the text of its treaties? A growing body of literature indicates that, in the past three decades, new norms and values have entered the EU's discourse, resulting in what is usually termed ‘normative power Europe’. Yet the research and knowledge to‐date about the EU's discursive assimilation of new values and norms is surprisingly poor. As any institutional change, such integration has the potential to undermine the coherence of the EU's identity and thus also its objective to ‘speak with one voice’. This article explores the EU's discursive management of the continuity‐versus‐change imperative by analysing the integration of new values into the text of its treaties. This issue is addressed based on a quantitative content analysis on the full texts of European founding treaties between the 1950s and 2009. Findings show that the distribution of the EU's values in the text is not uniform: while the language of market economy and democracy is pervasive, the values of peace, European identity, rights and social justice are mentioned less frequently and in restricted linguistic environments. To account for the differences in the integration of values into the EU's treaty discourse, the article develops the notion of a discursive mechanism of differentiated value integration (MDVI). This rationale echoes the logic of differentiation in policy implementation employed by the EU. It is claimed here that, applied in the European discursive arena, MDVI allows radically different readings of the same text. This helps the EU to maintain a coherent value identity while at the same time enabling change.

Different disciplinary, theoretical, and empirical lenses have contributed to a kaleidoscopic picture of the governance of civil society organizations (CSOs). Most of the time, CSO governance is contrasted with corporate governance in business organizations; only rarely is the broad variety of CSOs taken into account. To widen this perspective, we develop an empirically grounded typology of five discourses of organization in CSOs: managerialist, domestic, professionalist, grassroots, and civic discourse. We argue that each of these discourses gives specific answers to the three core questions of governance: To whom is the CSO accountable, i.e., who are the key actors who need to be protected by governance mechanisms? For what kind of performance is the CSO accountable? And which structures and processes are appropriate to ensure accountability? The way in which different discourses answer these questions provides us with a deeper understanding of the reasons behind the manifold notions of governance in CSOs.

This article summarises a part of the findings of a larger explorative research that investigates the way in which various representations of national political science(s)/studies tradition and community are negotiated and transformed through interaction, with a focus on the impact of international mobility on political science canon-building. Through a case study on Romania and mostly discourse analysis tools, it examines in particular the competing discourses on (1) what is considered prestigious and scientifically desirable for a national political science community, and (2) what a national political science tradition should be about in relation with the rest of the scholarly world.

The analysis of discursive practices enables us to get a deep understanding of single cases and the characteristics of their particular political context. The case of the military coup in Thailand in 2006 serves here to demonstrate the applicability of discourse analysis to investigations of the relation between civilian control of the military and the process of democratic consolidation.

Despite the fact that Hungary was less affected by the 2015 migration crisis in objective terms—i.e. the negligible number of immigrants entering and settling in the country in the last years-, the Hungarian government has been pushing an extreme anti-immigration political communication since 2015, which resulted in an intensive and highly politicised public discourse about immigration. This analysis aims at exploring the involvement of political scientists in the online public discourse about the migration and refugee crisis in Hungary between 2015 and 2019. In contrast with other countries, where high salient political crises have stimulated political scientists’ public engagement, this analysis finds that such participation does not apply to the Hungarian case. The low visibility of political scientists is accompanied by the adoption among participants in news portals of either a partisan, pro-government stance or a neutral approach to the issue, while critical positions with the government are almost inexistent. These patterns suggest the influence of both the illiberal institutional turn of the Hungarian media environment and the decrease in academic freedom in the country, as factors deterring public engagement among political scientists in the immigration issue, particularly of those who could adopt a critical position.

How the role of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies in relation to medical technologies (MedTech) is framed in the literature reflects and influences governance, shaping perceptions and guiding decisions. We identify different academic discourses to advance MedTech policy debates, in light of several factors potentially influencing this role. This is the first time that discourse on the role of HTA agencies in relation to MedTech has been reviewed. We conducted a comprehensive search, screened for eligibility, and synthesised findings using discourse analysis. 119 articles were included, from which 5 discourses were constructed. The first discourse describes the HTA agency as an independent evaluator of appropriate evidence for all health technologies. The second discourse explicitly categorises MedTech as separate from pharmaceuticals and expands the role of evaluator to include encouraging evidence generation for MedTech. The third discourse moves away from the role of independent evaluator and describes the HTA agency as a convenor of all stakeholder perspectives, using an experimental approach. The fourth and fifth discourses critically reflect on the role of HTA agencies, the fourth on their level of normative reflection and the fifth on their level of nuanced, clinical expertise. We conclude with recommendations for policy and research.

In what ways, if any, do justice-involved Black women make political demands? How do they understand their role and rights as citizens? Previous work has focused on identifying forms of political behavior, both formal and deviant (i.e., resistance, subversive acts), and the degree to which different groups participate in these behaviors. Few studies have focused on the sensemaking and ideologies likely motivating the behavior of justice-involved Black women both within and outside the formal political realm (e.g., elections). Drawing on the responses of Black women residents of an urban prison reentry facility, this article illustrates how this group engages in what we describe as “political claimsmaking,” a type of deviant discourse in which participants negotiate the power dynamics informing their social reality to make political demands. Further, we argue that while this political claimsmaking acts as a form of resistance and assertion of citizenship, it is simultaneously a form of inequitable political labor. Understanding Black women’s political claims, and the labor involved in making them, has serious implications for imagining more liberatory futures in which the benefits associated with citizenship are more freely accessed.

This paper focuses on the discursive connection between the notion of autonomy and the ageing-in-place policy approach, in a context of population aging and budgetary restraint. We argue that these central elements of the policy discourse on ageing represent a governance strategy that defines ageing in place as the prevailing standard for ageing well. Through an analysis of ageing policy documents released by the Québécois government between 2012 and 2023, this paper shows a disconnect between national policy frameworks and the reality of ageing in place. The issue of ageing in place is strongly bound up with the idea of autonomy, which is mainly expressed in terms of responsibility and freedom of choice, while its implementation overlooks the social structural determinants of individual autonomy and their impact on older people’s opportunities and processes of ageing in place.