Summary In order to understand how mutual understanding was achieved in discursive interactions between the welfare service users and service practitioners, conversation analysis was conducted in four discussion panels set up for building consensus on the appropriate structure for user participation in service management. Conversations in eight panel discussion meetings were audio-taped for analysing the talks-in-interaction therein. Drawing on the conversation analysis, the article uncovers the dynamics of consensus building among participants from different epistemic communities. Findings The study identifies the extent of divergence in views among stakeholders, which could have been obscured by the pressure to acquiesce in platform of face-to-face coordination. In the contest for truth between the welfare service users and service practitioners, personal experience has not been accepted as legitimate resource for supporting truth claims. Having limited argument resources on issues of service management, the welfare service users perceived argumentation in panel discussion a threatening venture that they chose to avoid. Avoidance was also a strategy that panel participants employed to maintain mundane interactions in the face of looming dissents. The article argues that the Habermasian communicative ethics are not panacea to the problem of coordination between the welfare service users and service practitioners. An agonistic model of democracy is called for to shift the objective of communication from gauging consensus to encouraging articulation of disagreements in the intricate user participation project. Application The article provides a new direction for developing the user participation imperative to address necessary pluralities among stakeholders of welfare services.
