One of the captivating dramas of contemporary democracy is enfolded in the work of participation professionals. An “industry of participation” seems to be emerging as public engagement work is increasingly professionalized and institutionalized in a range of policy arenas, and across public, private, and third sector organisations. “Participation” has become a policy area in its own right: the policy of making public policy through participation. Enacting such policy takes work, and therefore participation professionals whose job it is to manage contact between citizens, civic associations, and their own organisation. They often work across policy areas and processes, trying to bring people together and keep conversations going. The drama of their work is that participation professionals usually have a hard time carving out a space between life world and system world, as they encounter resistance and contestation by civic groups, communities, and their own organisations. Up to now, we know surprisingly little about the daily work carried out by these practitioners as well as their significance as new actors in processes of policy formulation and problem solving. Therefore, the main goal of this panel is to problematise the space that participation professionals are carving out. Are they really a new type of policy actor? Is this type of work already covered by existing labels (i.e. facilitative leaders, boundary spanners, best persons, etc) or do we need a new one? What background and training do they have? What are the origins of their work (i.e. is it inscribed in policies or is it a response to concrete problems)? How do they relate to structures of the state in terms of discretion, mandate, and constraints? How does this type of profession (and its goals) get inscribed in policy discourses in the first place? How do they channel participation? How does their work affect the meanings that participatory democracy takes in concrete settings? How does their work connect or contribute to local problems? How can they deal with the inherent challenges of their profession? What impact do they have? This panel aims to bring together researchers and practitioners into a practice-based conversation about what and how they can learn from each other. We invite contributions that analyse this type of profession(al), and share experience-based stories about everyday practices. Accordingly, the panel will consist of two interconnected sessions: 1. Macro. The first session will focus on the professionalization and institutionalisation of the participation professional as a policy actor in historical and cross-cultural contexts. What can we learn as we zoom out on this type of policy work, and interrogate its nature against the background of contemporary developments around networked governance and participatory/deliberative democracy? 2. Micro. The second session will zoom in on the actual practices, dilemmas, and strategies embodied and enacted by participation professionals. What can we learn as we focus on specific dynamics on the ground? What are the most pressing challenges that they face? What can Interpretive Policy Analysis bring to a practice-based conversation on these issues? The broader goal of the panel is to begin to explore the scope for co-creating shared vocabularies and ways of thinking about participation work on the ground. Ideally, we aim to create a space where practitioners and researchers can engage in shared inquiry that is helpful to both. We would like to invite proposals (individual or joint) from researchers and practitioners and in a range of formats (paper, presentation, discussion, sandpit, audiovisual, etc). Deadline 31/01/12. Submission here: http://event.globe-view.com/event/wvDhkJP4ln/panel/299