The Irony of Public Discourse in City Council Meetings: A Case Study

Thesis Abstract

Public discourse within city council meetings operates at the intersection of democratic ritual and pragmatic governance, where rhetorical performances often mask policy constraints and partisan alignments. This study investigates the irony that public deliberation can simultaneously empower citizen input and reproduce technocratic closure, by examining how discourse in City of Midvale’s council meetings negotiates legitimacy, accountability, and policy outcomes. The aim is to illuminate how symbolic language, rhetorical strategies, and institutional norms shape decision-making processes, with a focus on the tension between inclusive rhetoric and elite control. Specific objectives are to identify recurring discursive patterns that constitute the perceived openness of council deliberations; to analyze how participants deploy irony, sarcasm, and framing devices to influence agenda setting; to assess the alignment or dissonance between stated deliberative ideals and actual policymaking trajectories; to evaluate the relationship between discourse quality and governance outcomes across budgetary and planning decisions; and to develop a theoretical model linking public discourse features to policy responsiveness. The study adopts a mixed-methods research design, integrating qualitative discourse analysis with quantitative content metrics and supplemented by semi-structured interviews. The population comprises twenty-one city council meetings held over a three-year period (2019–2021) and includes transcripts, video records, and accompanying policy documents. A purposive sampling of twenty council members, five administrators, and fifteen active community stakeholders will be conducted to gain diverse perspectives. Data collection employs a triangulated approach (i) transcription of 126 hours of council proceedings, (ii) coding of discursive instances using a thematic framework informed by Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough) and speech-act theory, (iii) quantitative coding that yields measures of argumentation density, stance polarity, and rhetorical complexity, and (iv) semi-structured interviews and focus groups to capture perceived legitimacy and impact. Instrument validity is ensured through expert panel validation, intercoder reliability checks (Cohen’s kappa > .80), and pilot testing of coding schemes. Reliability is maintained via audit trails and replication across two council cycles. Data analysis employs a combination of thematic analysis (for qualitative discourse features), regression analysis (to test associations between discourse variables and policy outcomes such as time-to-decision and budget variance), and network analysis (to map actor linkages and influence pathways). A structural equation model will be specified to examine indirect effects of discourse quality on stakeholder trust and policy responsiveness, controlling for agenda constraints and demographic factors. The theoretical framework anchors the study in Critical Discourse Analysis, Speech Act Theory, and the Theory of Deliberative Democracy, incorporating Lukácsian irony and contemporary irony theory to conceptualize how rhetorical devices reveal underlying power asymmetries. The study also integrates a conceptual model synthesizing discourse features, governance processes, and outcomes to illuminate mechanisms by which irony mediates public legitimacy. Expected findings anticipate that higher discourse complexity and strategic irony correlate with longer decision cycles but enhanced perceived legitimacy among certain stakeholder groups, while simultaneously diminishing transparency for marginalized voices. It is expected that sarcastic framing and tokenistic public participation will be linked to selective agenda setting and insulated policy choices, thereby revealing a paradox where openness coexists with incremental governance non-responsiveness. The research will identify benchmarks of discourse quality associated with more robust policy responsiveness and greater public trust, as well as contexts in which discourse inefficiency amplifies distrust and disengagement. The study contributes to knowledge by empirically detailing how ironic discourse operates within municipal governance, advancing theoretical understandings of deliberative democracy, discourse power, and legitimacy in local government. It offers a practical framework for evaluating council deliberations that can inform training for public officials and civic education programs. Policy recommendations include explicit guidelines for inclusive agenda management, transparent ritualization of public comment, and structural reforms to reduce performative rhetoric. The study concludes that recognizing and addressing ironic elements in public discourse is essential to transforming deliberation from a symbolic practice into an effective mechanism for accountable and responsive local governance.