British Pluralism Research Articles

Sectarianism, the Nonconformist Conscience, and 'British Pluralism': The Digital Humanities and the Language of Home Rule, c.1910-1914.

In recent years, historians have reassessed the political importance of the third Home Rule Bill. Important works by G. K. Peatling, Daniel Jackson, and David Thackeray have overturned the once-dominant view that the measure was a straightforward distraction from social reform. Yet, this scholarship has focused almost exclusively on the response of Unionists to Home Rule, and few works discuss the measure's significance for Edwardian Liberals. This article rectifies this historiographical oversight by comparing the Liberal and Unionist response to the third Home Rule Bill in Devonshire and Lancashire. Using techniques from the digital humanities, I have shown that the measure dominated the grassroots political discourse of both parties before the First World War.

Do state traditions matter? Comparing deliberative governance initiatives for climate change adaptation in Dutch corporatism and British pluralism

In the emerging field of climate adaptation, deliberative governance initiatives are proposed to yield better adaptation strategies. However, introducing these network-centred deliberations between public and private players may contrast with institutionalized traditions of interest intermediation between state and society. This paper shows how these so-called state traditions affect the processes and outcomes of newly set up deliberative governance initiatives. Because of the similarities in geographical characteristics and the differences in state tradition we conducted a qualitative case study comparison of Dutch and British water management. Our comparison is two-fold. First, we compare deliberative governance initiatives in the different state traditions of the Netherlands and UK. Second, we compare the newly set up deliberative governance initiative to an existing policy regime mainstreaming climate adaptation in a similar state tradition, in our case the Netherlands. We find that: (1) deliberative governance initiatives in the corporatist state tradition of the Netherlands yields learning but shows apathy among politically elected decision-makers compared to deliberative governance initiatives in the pluralist state tradition of the UK where clearly defined rules and responsibilities yields negotiation and action; and (2) a typical corporatist policy regime mainstreaming climate adaption in a corporatist state tradition yields effective and legitimate policy formation but lacks learning.

Beyond unity in plurality: Rethinking the pluralist legacy

This article is a critical analysis of the pluralist legacy in modern political discourse. The article argues that this legacy imposes conceptual constraints on empirical and normative inquiry into current forms of human belonging and interaction, a predicament most evident today in the field of global political theory. It is argued that this is due to a lasting preoccupation in the pluralist legacy with the vexed question of unity in plurality. The article analyzes the pluralist legacy historically and conceptually, by tracing influential varieties of group theory in modern political discourse, from early British pluralism to mid-century interest group theory, to theories of participatory democracy and group identity, to recent theories of global politics. This review hopes to show how the question of unity in plurality has informed theorizing within as well as across different contexts, and where this leaves us today. To conclude, the article offers some suggestions as to what might be needed in order to move beyond the pluralist legacy, arguing that this would involve a wholesale change of perspectives on the question of unity in plurality, for the benefit of empirical and normative inquiry into current conditions in world politics.

The pluralism of British pluralism

Despite the international character of political ideologies, an historically distinct British pluralism can be identified. But it is characterized by a tension inherent in all pluralism, between groups as sources of individual identity, and individuals as components of groups. That is not a cause for concern, since the tensions within political thinking are the source of its dynamism.

Arguments for 'British Pluralism' in qualitative health research.

This paper examines the argument that certain qualitative research methods can be used in 'pure' forms. Whilst rigid adherence to particular published procedures might be possible, we argue that in many cases this is neither necessary nor more likely to increase the validity of the research outcome. In examining the works of well-known claimants to particular research approaches such as grounded theory and phenomenology we show that purity of method is uncommon. In particular it is possible to demonstrate that all published qualitative methods are subject to their own underlying relativist philosophy. The implication of this is that all are social constructions and that their execution will necessarily be negotiated in time and context. We conclude that analysis of varied examples of qualitative research shows methods to be more flexible than is often admitted. What we describe as 'British Pluralism' is an attempt to accept this reality whilst maintaining rigour through integrity, clear accounts, reflexivity and constructive critique of one's own work and that of others.

Arguments for ‘British Pluralism’ in qualitative health research

Arguments for ‘British Pluralism’ in qualitative health research Aims of the study. This paper examines the argument that certain qualitative research methods can be used in ‘pure’ forms. Whilst rigid adherence to particular published procedures might be possible, we argue that in many cases this is neither necessary nor more likely to increase the validity of the research outcome. Methodological purity. In examining the works of well‐known claimants to particular research approaches such as grounded theory and phenomenology we show that purity of method is uncommon. In particular it is possible to demonstrate that all published qualitative methods are subject to their own underlying relativist philosophy. The implication of this is that all are social constructions and that their execution will necessarily be negotiated in time and context. Conclusion. We conclude that analysis of varied examples of qualitative research shows methods to be more flexible than is often admitted. What we describe as ‘British Pluralism’ is an attempt to accept this reality whilst maintaining rigour through integrity, clear accounts, reflexivity and constructive critique of one’s own work and that of others.

“The Methods of Barbarism” and the “Rights of Small Nations”: War Propaganda and British Pluralism

The “methods of barbarism” and the “rights of small nations” are perhaps the most recognizable of British slogans arising out of the wars of the early twentieth century. They are instantly associated with the Boer War and the First World War respectively, but seldom are they associated with each other. However, the Pro-Boer rhetoric of “the methods of barbarism” and the First World War propaganda of “the rights of small nations” are intimately linked through their roots in the pluralist Liberal vision of Britishness.These slogans and the propaganda campaigns that they epitomized must be understood within the context of a multicultural Britain and opposing notions of British national identity. Defining “barbarism” as the oppression of small nations through the brutal use of force, the Pro-Boers associated the term with the Anglocentric vision of the British nation reflected in the “New Imperialism” of the Conservatives. Through their belief in Anglo-Saxon racial superiority, the Conservative imperialists maintained that small nations like those of the Irish, the Welsh, and the Boers would either be assimilated or swept aside by the historical progress of an expanding Anglo-Saxon nation state. In contrast to this notion of Conservative “barbarism,” the Pro-Boer Liberals drew on the Gladstonian heritage of their party in defining the United Kingdom as a multinational state at the center of a multinational empire. They eschewed the use of force in the maintenance of empire and argued that the bonds of imperialism must be based upon mutual goodwill, voluntarism, and the recognition of the principle of nationality.When the First World War broke out in 1914, propagandists drew upon these contrasting constructions of Liberal cultural pluralism and Conservative cultural uniformity. In terms similar to those employed by the Pro-Boers, British propagandists depicted the First World War as a struggle against German “barbarism” and as a fight to vindicate the “rights of small nations.” Solidly based upon the Liberal construction of the multicultural and multinational nature of Britishness, Britain's role as the champion of the principle of nationality was proclaimed with an eye not only to the international context of Europe but to the domestic context of the British state and empire as well.

Ethnic Pluralism and Public Policy.

Last May the Academy, in conjunction with two British organizations, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Policy Studies Institute, sponsored a conference in England comparing and evaluating United States and British efforts to eliminate discrimination and increase opportunitiesfor racial minorities. This study wasfunded by the Commission for Racial Equality, the German Marshall Fund of the United States, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Thefollowing are excerpts by the two co-editors of the collaborative volume resulting from this project, Ethnic Pluralism and Public Policy: Achieving Equality in the United States and Britain. Nathan Glazer, author of the introduction, is Professor of Education and Social Structure at Harvard University, and Ken Young, author of the chapter on British ethnic pluralism and policy, is a Senior Fellow at the Policy Studies Institute.