Journal articles on the topic 'Deliberation'
To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Deliberation.
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Deliberation.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
De Brasi, Leandro, and Claudio Gutierrez. "Anonymity and Asynchronicity as Key Design Dimensions for the Reciprocity of Online Democratic Deliberation." International Journal of Applied Philosophy 34, no. 2 (2020): 183–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/ijap2021322143.
Full textAbstract:
The aim of this paper is to identify, given certain democratic normative standards regarding deliberation, some pros as well as cons of possible online deliberation designs due to variations in two key design dimensions: namely, asynchronicity and anonymity. In particular, we consider one crucial aspect of deliberative argumentation: namely, its reciprocity, which puts interaction centre stage to capture the back-and-forth of reasons. More precisely, we focus on two essential features of the deliberative interaction: namely, its listening widely and listening carefully. We conclude that one sort of online deliberation that combines the two design features of anonymity and asynchronicity is likely to better promote the reciprocity required for democratic deliberation than both natural and designed offline deliberations (such as the designed deliberation in Deliberative Polling) and online simulations of them.
2
Holdo, Markus. "Meta-deliberation: everyday acts of critical reflection in deliberative systems." Politics 40, no. 1 (March 26, 2019): 106–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263395719837914.
Full textAbstract:
The term ‘meta-deliberation’ refers to processes of addressing problems with the way that conversations about shared concerns – our ordinary deliberations – proceed. This article discusses the distinction between meta-deliberation and ordinary deliberation and examines three questions raised by previous arguments about meta-deliberation: (1) what kinds of communication should count as meta-deliberation, (2) does meta-deliberation always lead to reflective understanding and improvements in practices of deliberation, and (3) why would deliberative systems need meta-deliberation? Consistent with the systemic perspective on deliberation, this article suggests an inclusive view of which acts and sites may contribute to processes of meta-deliberation: it argues that meta-deliberation faces the same potential problems as ordinary deliberation, such as unequal power relations and narrow perspectives, and therefore requires careful examination; but when meta-deliberation works, it provides societies with reflective capacity, which helps them locate systemic weaknesses. The article concludes by discussing how further studies can help make meta-deliberation more inclusive in order to serve system-level critical reflection.
3
Ebeling, Martin, and Fabio Wolkenstein. "Exercising Deliberative Agency in Deliberative Systems." Political Studies 66, no. 3 (September 29, 2017): 635–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0032321717723514.
Full textAbstract:
At the heart of the ideal of deliberative democracy lies an emphasis on the political autonomy of citizens participating in procedures of public justification aimed at the promotion of the common good. The recent systemic turn in deliberative democracy has moved so far away from this ideal that it relegates the deliberations of citizens to a secondary matter, legitimising forms of rule that may even undermine the normative impulses central to the project of deliberative democracy. We critically discuss this theoretical development and show how deliberative agency can effectively be exercised in complex political systems. We argue, in particular, that political parties play a central role in facilitating the exercise of deliberative agency, fostering deliberation among citizens and linking their deliberations to decisions. Instead of giving up on the possibility that citizens participate in procedures of public justification, deliberative democrats should look to parties’ unique ability to enable deliberation.
4
Filatova, Olga, Yury Kabanov, and Yuri Misnikov. "Public Deliberation in Russia: Deliberative Quality, Rationality and Interactivity of the Online Media Discussions." Media and Communication 7, no. 3 (August 9, 2019): 133–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i3.1925.
Full textAbstract:
Deliberation research is now undergoing two emerging trends: deliberation is shifting from offline to online, as well as from an inherently democratic concept to the one applicable to less competitive regimes (He & Warren, 2011). The goal of this article is to study the peculiarities of deliberative practices in hybrid regimes, taking online discourse on the Russian anti-sanctions policy as a case. We use the Habermasian concept of basic validity claims to assess deliberation quality through the lens of argumentation and interactivity. Our findings suggest that deliberative practices can exist in non-competitive contexts and non-institutionalized digital spaces, in the form of intersubjective solidarities resulting from the everyday political talk among ordinary citizens. Such deliberations can be counted as argumentative discourses, although in a special, casual way—unlike the procedural rule-based debates. Generally, as in established liberal democracies, deliberation in Russia tends to attract like-minded participants. While the argumentative quality does not seem to vary across the discussion threads sample, the level of deliberative interactivity is higher on pro-government media, accompanied with the higher level of incivility. On the other hand, discourses on independent media are distinctively against the government policy of food destruction. The democratic value of such deliberations is unclear and might depend on the political allegiance and ownership of the media. Though some discourses can be considered democratic, their impact on decision-making remains minimal, which is a key constraint of deliberation.
5
Uhr, John. "Testing Deliberative Democracy: The 1999 Australian Republic Referendum." Government and Opposition 35, no. 2 (April 2000): 189–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1477-7053.00023.
Full textAbstract:
THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES AUSTRALIAN REFERENDUM PRACTICE WITH the aim of contributing to the growing international debate over concepts of deliberative democracy, defined in terms of democratic regimes structured to maximize community deliberation in public decision-making. Theories of deliberative democracy go beyond earlier approaches to participatory democracy by specifying in greater detail the nature of the deliberative process in which citizens should be able to participate and of the importance of institutions of civil society to an effective deliberative process. The focus on ideals of public deliberation ref lects the ambition of deliberative democrats (the ‘deliberati’ if you will) to ground political decision-making in norms of shared public reason. Where earlier approaches to participatory democracy investigated rights to political participation, current approaches to deliberative democracy also investigate responsibilities of political participants – particularly responsibilities to comply with norms of rational political deliberation.
6
Siu, Alice. "Deliberation & the Challenge of Inequality." Daedalus 146, no. 3 (July 2017): 119–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_00451.
Full textAbstract:
Deliberative critics contend that because societal inequalities cannot be bracketed in deliberative settings, the deliberative process inevitably perpetuates these inequalities. As a result, they argue, deliberation does not serve its theorized purposes, but rather produces distorted dialogue determined by inequalities, not merits. Advocates of deliberation must confront these criticisms: do less-privileged, less-educated, or perhaps illiterate participants stand a chance in discussions with the more privileged, better educated, and well spoken? Could their arguments ever be perceived or weighed equally? This essay presents empirical evidence to demonstrate that, in deliberations that are structured to provide a more level playing field, inequalities in skill and status do not translate into inequalities of influence.
7
Schauer, Frederick, and Bruce Ackerman. "Deliberating about Deliberation." Michigan Law Review 90, no. 6 (May 1992): 1187. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1289406.
Full text
8
Tong, Dezhi, and Baogang He. "How democratic are Chinese grassroots deliberations? An empirical study of 393 deliberation experiments in China." Japanese Journal of Political Science 19, no. 4 (December 2018): 630–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1468109918000269.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractChinese public hearings or consultations have been subject to numerous debates, doubts, and scepticism about the existence of Chinese deliberative democracy. More empirical evidence, however, is required about these debates before we can offer any meaningful account of the nature, characteristics, and direction of Chinese deliberation. In addition, although there have been many case studies on grassroots deliberative democracy, such studies are intellectually isolated from each other in the sense that they do not comprise a statistical unit. To overcome this deficiency, we developed a new research method for studying grassroots deliberation by collecting and validating the existing case studies, thereby making them a statistical unit. This paper aims to offer a big-picture perspective and the national statistical trend behind the uneven development of grassroots deliberative democracy. It develops an intellectual framework to assess whether grassroots deliberation is democratic. By collecting, validating, and coding 393 cases of Chinese grassroots deliberations, we have assessed Chinese grassroots deliberation, confirmed the cases’ democratic attributes, and provided a solid statistical result. Although there is strong evidence to support the claim that these grassroots deliberation experiments are democratic, there remain some variations, nuances, and shortcomings. The full picture is not simple, but instead provides a mixed perspective.
9
Di Mauro, Danilo, and Irena Fiket. "Debating Europe, transforming identities: assessing the impact of deliberative poll treatment on identity." Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica 47, no. 3 (January 16, 2017): 267–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ipo.2016.26.
Full textAbstract:
Although there is a considerable amount of talk about transformative power of deliberation on identity, the debate in literature remains highly theoretical in underlying the benefits of deliberative model for EU Integration. So far, little empirical evidence is available on the actual impact of deliberation.Can deliberation enhance European identity?We specifically address this question by using deliberative polling quasi-experiment that involved random sample of 348 European citizens in 2 days deliberationon issuesof Europeanconcern.The comparison of citizens’ sense of belonging to both EU and nation states before and after deliberation, allowed us to explore the effects of deliberation on identity and further test it against the control group. The analyses show that when European citizens are enabled to deliberate on European issues beyond national borders their exclusive national identity decreases and they become more community minded. The observed transformation of identities is further analyzed in order to explore the relationship between European and national identity. The analyses indicate that even after deliberative treatment in which European identity has been activated the relationship between multiple identities remains compatible.
10
Akgül, Çiğdem Görgün, and Musa Akgül. "Patterns of the Parliamentary Debates: How Deliberative are Turkish Democratic Opening Debates?" Politics in Central Europe 18, no. 2 (June 1, 2022): 175–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/pce-2022-0008.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract This study attempts to measure the deliberation quality of the Democratic Opening Debates in the Turkish Parliament through the Discourse Quality Index (DQI). The majority of studies have been conducted on the deliberation quality of relatively homogenised and developed Western societies and on less conflictual or contentious topics. In these countries, democratic culture has been institutionalised. On the contrary, Turkey is a developing country and has been going through an ethnic conflict involving violence for many decades. Thus, this case study aims to make an original contribution to empirical deliberation studies. Researchers have examined the 88-page stenographic records of the Democratic Opening Debates and put forward a DQI score. According to the findings, the controversial debates fulfill only 40% of high-level deliberative discourse ethics. This result demonstrates that the ideal deliberation process does not exist in Turkey even though a convenient atmosphere is created for deliberations by means of official procedures. Ethnic division in the society has a profoundly negative impact on the quality of deliberations.
11
Levy, Hiroko Ide, and Shiro Sakaiya. "Effect of deliberation style on the gender gap in deliberative participation." Japanese Journal of Political Science 21, no. 3 (May 19, 2020): 158–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1468109920000055.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe importance of citizen deliberation in democracy is widely recognized today and the current digitalized and more fragmented society may benefit from discussions among people with diverse opinions in a well-organized setting. At the same time, concerns have also been raised about inequality in deliberative participation. We narrowed our focus to gender equality and examined whether introducing an evidence-driven style of deliberation can mitigate gender inequality in policy deliberation. In our repeated measure (within-subjects) experiment, university students in Japan discussed divisive policy issues during two sessions. Half of the participants started the discussion by examining factual information about the topic (evidence-driven style) and the other half started the discussion by expressing opinions about the topic (verdict-driven style). In the second session, the two groups switched styles. We found a statistically significant gender gap in participatory contribution for the verdict-driven style, but no such gap existed for the evidence-driven style. Using causal mediation analysis, we also found that, compared with the verdict-driven style, the evidence-driven style of deliberation reduces the gender gap by lowering women's tendency to agree with men. One possible explanation from the viewpoint of gendered communication is that women were more confident in evidence-driven deliberations. This psychological effect is a factor that is harder for facilitators to control and thus the evidence-driven style can be effective even with the presence of facilitators. This paper demonstrates the importance of studying how deliberations are conducted and how deliberation styles can affect the content and the consequences of policy deliberations.
12
Wiesner, Andre´. "Praising deliberation, deliberating praise." Pretexts: Literary and Cultural Studies 12, no. 2 (November 2003): 199–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1015549032000177131.
Full text
13
Raisio, Harri, and Peter Ehrström. "Taking Deliberation to the Streets: Reflections on Deliberative Walks." Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration 21, no. 4 (December 15, 2017): 27–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.v21i4.11488.
Full textAbstract:
The focus of this article, a model that we call the Deliberative Walk, builds on the princi- ples of Citizens’ Juries and Development Walks. Two case studies are used to explore the potential of uniting the two different participatory models, one that is based on discussion and the other that is more observation oriented. Both case studies were implemented in Finland during autumn 2014. Reviewing these case studies is important, because the issue of ‘taking deliberation to the streets’ has rarely been addressed in the academic literature on CJs and other deliberative mini-publics. Based on the case studies, our suggestion is that in place-specific deliberations, a Deliberative Walk is a suitable method when the issue that is being tackled has highly intertwined social and physical dimensions, while in more situation-specific deliberations, a Deliberative Walk adds value when the issue is such that it needs a more complete and direct learning experience.
14
Dewansyah, Bilal. "MODEL KAMPANYE DELIBERATIF DALAM DESAIN PILKADA SERENTAK: SEBUAH GAGASAN PERUBAHAN." Jurnal Rechts Vinding: Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional 4, no. 1 (April 30, 2015): 21. http://dx.doi.org/10.33331/rechtsvinding.v4i1.46.
Full textAbstract:
<p>Dalam diskursus demokrasi deliberatif pada masa Pemilu, model kampanye deliberatif masih diperdebatkan. Model tersebut dapat membuka akses informasi yang komprehensif guna memperluas pertimbangan para pemilih sebelum masa pemungutan suara. Model kampanye ini merupakan suatu proposal perubahan agar kampanye dapat dijadikan sebagai ruang musyawarah yang lebih rasional untuk mengelaborasi visi dan misi calon dengan konstituen. Terdapat masalah penting yang dielaborasi: (1) mengapa deliberasi demokratis saat kampanye menjadi penting dalam Pilkada? (2) bagaimana bentuk kampanye deliberatif dalam desain Pilkada serentak? Secara kelimuan, pendekatan yang digunakan bersifat interdispliner yang memadukan pendekatan hukum untuk mengevaluasi peraturan perundang-undangan terkait. Berdasarkan pembahasan, dapat disimpulkan kampanye Pilkada saat ini bersifat adversarial, tidak memberikan informasi yang cukup dan berimbang, serta seringkali materi kampanye tidak rasional secara normatif. Penulis menyarankan, jika bentuk kampanye deliberatif hendak diakomodasi sebagai mekanisme resmi Pilkada, sebaiknya dapat dimulai dengan mengubah pranata uji publik yang pernah diatur dalam UU No. 1 Tahun 2015, dari forum yang bersifat formalitas dan elitis menjadi forum publik yang deliberatif.</p><p>Deliberative campaign model remains debatable in the discourses of deliberative democracy during recent election period. This model can open the access of information comprehensively which may expand electors’ deliberation before the election day. It is also a proposal for a reform so that a campaign may serve as a more rational deliberatiion room for elaborating the vission and mission of the candidates with the constituents. There are some important issues that are elaborated: (1) Why democratic deliberation become important in local elections for regional leeaders during the campaign? (2) How is the model of deliberative campaign in the design of simultaneous local elections of regional leaders? Scientifically, the interdisiplinary approaches is used combined with the legal approach in evaluating related laws and regulations. Based on the research, it can be concluded that the current campaign of local elections for regional leaders is adversial, it does not provide sufficient and balanced information, as well as it is often be found that the campaign materials are normatively irrational. The author sugested, if this model of deliberative campaign should be accomodated as a formal mechanism of the local elections for regional leaders, it can be started by amending the procedure of public test stipulated in Law Number 1 of 2015, from formalistic and elitist forum to a deliberative public forum.</p>
15
Mohamad Firdaus. "Democracy Making melalui Musyawarah Desa di Desa Bendungan Kecamatan Kaliwiro Wonosobo." Jurnal Masyarakat dan Desa 2, no. 2 (December 20, 2022): 159–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.47431/jmd.v2i2.277.
Full textAbstract:
Democracy making through village deliberation is a deliberative theory of democracy to control and aggregation. Explorative Qualitative Research is used to explore phenomena and explore concepts related to making democracy in Bendungan Village. The data is analyzed by phenomena that occur in people's lives. Data collection was done by observation, documentation and interviews. The results of the study show that democracy making in Bendungan Village is carried out through village deliberations which are held twice a year which is the result of democracy making hamlet deliberations and non-formal deliberations such as Friday night tahlilan events, recitation and patrols. In these non-formal deliberations, political spaces are opened to discuss various kinds of community interests in order to become a means of control and aggregation. With strong deliberation at Friday night such as tahlilan events, women's recitations, night patrols, community service, and posyandu (Integrated Healthcare Center) which are carried out routinely, in addition to controlling power and aggregation, genuine people's aspirations can emerge that are autonomous and not based on mobilization based on community modalities
16
Tang, Beibei. "Deliberation and governance in Chinese middle-class neighborhoods." Japanese Journal of Political Science 19, no. 4 (December 2018): 663–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1468109918000282.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis paper examines the mechanisms of deliberation and conflict resolution in Chinese urban middle-class residential communities. Along with the rise of private home ownership and urban middle-class residential estates, disputes and conflicts have risen between the residents, resident self-elected organization (homeowner associations), real estate developer and property management companies, and the local government. Through the lens of deliberation in middle-class neighborhoods, this paper analyzes (1) how and to what extent deliberation is introduced and employed as an instrumental tool by the local government to achieve their goal of maintaining social stability. (2) In what ways and to what extent deliberation has served as part of governance strategies. And (3) whether and how the state and non-state actors interact with each other during this process to produce more democratic governance under the Party-state's authoritarian rule. This paper adopts a systemic approach to examine authoritarian deliberation as a neighborhood governance strategy. The findings suggest that (1) deliberation has become an instrumental tool for conflict resolution introduced by the local government to middle-class neighborhoods. Residents’ Committees, on behalf of the state, has become key coordinator and mediator during the deliberation process. (2) The systemic approach of authoritarian deliberation includes a mix of deliberative elements and other features of political culture, traditions, strategies, and institutions. The dynamic interactions between deliberation and authoritarianism, between deliberative and non-deliberative features, and between formal deliberative meetings and informal deliberative talks all contribute to a functional deliberative system.
17
He, Baogang, and Hendrik Wagenaar. "Authoritarian deliberation revisited." Japanese Journal of Political Science 19, no. 4 (December 2018): 622–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1468109918000257.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis introductory paper reviews the origin and development of the concept of authoritarian deliberation, and highlights the importance of culture and cultural tradition associated with public consultation. This paper summarizes and illustrates six key features of authoritarian deliberation in China. First, deliberation in China is a precarious balance between legal rule and state intervention. Second, the Party appeals to public reason to address and manage social conflict, and develop the soft coercion that accompanies much authoritarian deliberation. Third, this highly controlled deliberative process does, however, allow the freedom of local participants to find spaces for democratic expression, and local experiments to develop elements of deliberative democracy. Fourth, authoritarian deliberation is characterized by mutual instrumentalism. Fifth, there is an importance of an administrative and policy perspective in authoritarian deliberation. Six, the concept of authoritarian deliberation is not limited to China. There is the convergence in real-world deliberative process and outcome between authoritarian and liberal democratic systems.
18
He, Baogang, and Mark E. Warren. "Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development." Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 2 (June 2011): 269–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592711000892.
Full textAbstract:
Authoritarian rule in China is now permeated by a wide variety of deliberative practices. These practices combine authoritarian concentrations of power with deliberative influence, producing the apparent anomaly of authoritarian deliberation. Although deliberation is usually associated with democracy, they are distinct phenomena. Democracy involves the inclusion of individuals in matters that affect them through distributions of empowerments such as votes and rights. Deliberation is a mode of communication involving persuasion-based influence. Combinations of non-inclusive power and deliberative influence—authoritarian deliberation—are readily identifiable in China, probably reflecting failures of command authoritarianism under the conditions of complexity and pluralism produced by market-oriented development. The concept of authoritarian deliberation frames two possible trajectories of political development in China: the increasing use of deliberative practices stabilizes and strengthens authoritarian rule, or deliberative practices serve as a leading edge of democratization.
19
He, Baogang, and Mark E. Warren. "Authoritarian Deliberation in China." Daedalus 146, no. 3 (July 2017): 155–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_00454.
Full textAbstract:
Authoritarian rule in China increasingly involves a wide variety of deliberative practices. These practices combine authoritarian command with deliberative influence, producing the apparent anomaly of authoritarian deliberation. Although deliberation and democracy are usually found together, they are distinct phenomena. Democracy involves the inclusion of individuals in matters that affect them through distributions of empowerments like votes and rights. Deliberation is the kind of communication that involves persuasion-based influence. Combinations of command-based power and deliberative influence – like authoritarian deliberation – are now pervading Chinese politics, likely a consequence of the failures of command authoritarianism under the conditions of complexity and pluralism produced by market-oriented development. The concept of authoritarian deliberation frames two possible trajectories of political development in China. One possibility is that the increasing use of deliberative practices stabilizes and strengthens authoritarian rule. An alternative possibility is that deliberative practices serve as a leading edge of democratization.
20
Martínez-Bascuñán, Máriam. "Misgivings on Deliberative Democracy: Revisiting the Deliberative Framework." World Political Science 12, no. 2 (November 1, 2016): 195–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/wps-2016-0006.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractIn the last few years, the Deliberative Framework has become the main model in the consolidation of democratic processes. Deliberative theorists argue that deliberation helps to promote the democratic level of our societies, and they have good reasons to support this view. This article, however, is critical with some of these claims, questioning the widespread assumption of an existing connection between deliberation and democracy. With this objective in mind, we will examine the following three questions: Who deliberates? Under what conditions does deliberation take place? What is the content of deliberation? Once the potential repressive components of deliberation are made clear, we try to reach some normative considerations regarding how to promote certain mechanisms of deliberation that are in fact more in line with deliberative emancipation ideas and, as such, better assertions for promoting democracy.
21
Beauvais, Edana. "Deliberation and Non-Deliberative Communication." Journal of Deliberative Democracy 16, no. 1 (2020): 4–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.16997/jdd.387.
Full text
22
Garver, Eugene. "Deliberative Rhetoric and Ethical Deliberation." Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought 30, no. 2 (2013): 189–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/20512996-90000538.
Full textAbstract:
Central to Aristotle’s Ethics is the virtue of phronēsis, a good condition of the rational part of the soul that determines the means to ends set by the ethical virtues. Central to the Rhetoric is the art of presenting persuasive deliberative arguments about how to secure the ends set by the audience and its constitution. What is the relation between the art and the virtue of deliberation? Rhetorical facility can be a deceptive facsimile of virtuous reasoning, but there can be more fruitful connections as well. In particular, the experience of judging rhetorical arguments can aid in the development of phronēsis through exercising those aspects of phronēsis that are not so intimately tied to the ethical virtues. Judging the advice given by others leads to excellence in reasoning practically for oneself.
23
TAUFIQ, Muhammad, Suhirman SUHIRMAN, Tubagus Furqon SOFHANI, and Benedictus KOMBAITAN. "Towards Deliberative Ideals with Informality: A Practical Study of Rural Planning in Indonesia." Journal of Settlements and Spatial Planning 12, no. 1 (April 20, 2021): 13–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.24193/jssp.2021.1.02.
Full textAbstract:
This article focuses on a specific discussion regarding how rural planning in Indonesia can provide an understanding of deliberative planning practice. It contributes to the literature related to deliberative planning in a non-western rural context. Primary data were collected from interviews with 23 respondents in Pematang Tengah village, Indonesia. Secondary data, consisting of scientific literature, research reports, and internet sources, were used, as well. Observations were conducted to reveal the way development projects are practically proposed in hamlet and village forums. Different stages of the process were identified and it was concluded that two deliberative mechanisms were used, more precisely directed deliberation and disjointed deliberation. Directed deliberation is an open dialogue that is overseen by all stakeholders. Alternatively, disjointed deliberation is conducted in a separate, informal arena and it is initiated by the local elites. The findings show that the disjointed deliberation in the informal arena can disturb the deliberative ideals, but it can also help to make the formal deliberation successful and fulfil the deliberative ideals.
24
Bartnik, Adriana Sylwia, and Katarzyna Julia Kowalska. "The Role of Lay Judges in the Process of Adjudication." Studia Iuridica 71 (November 20, 2017): 11–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0010.5811.
Full textAbstract:
The paper attempts to expound upon the actual and statutory role of lay judges in the process of adjudication. A theoretical model was confronted with the practice of making judicial determinations. The authors analysed the state of the law on the matter and the functions of lay judges accorded thereto by the legislator. In addition, as a result of extensive sociological-legal studies, a typology of the moments of composing a judgment (i.e. during deliberations; in between cases; conversations with prosecutors; voluntary acceptance of liability (plea bargain)) and of types of deliberations present in Polish courts (deliberation without deliberation, deliberation dominated by the judge, deliberation pro forma, the ideal type, deliberation and a discussion – bargaining) is described.
25
Marraud, Hubert. "Group Identity in Public Deliberation." Informal Logic 43, no. 2 (June 15, 2023): 224–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v43i2.7686.
Full textAbstract:
I argue that different argumentative practices require participants to categorize themselves in different modes. Accordingly, I distinguish four types of argumentation: rational argumentation, intergroup argumentation, intragroup argumentation, and, finally, personal argumentation. An inescapable implication of my approach to deliberation is that deliberation presupposes the self-categorization of participants in the same ingroup. Deliberation does not require, however, the group to antecede the deliberation process, and a distinctive feature of successful public deliberation is its capacity to produce social identification with the deliberative group. Thus, identity negotiation is an important part of deliberative processes.
26
Caluwaerts, Didier, and Kris Deschouwer. "Building bridges across political divides: experiments on deliberative democracy in deeply divided Belgium." European Political Science Review 6, no. 3 (November 1, 2013): 427–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1755773913000179.
Full textAbstract:
In recent years, deliberative democracy has moved from a philosophical ideal into an empirical theory with numerous experiments testing the theoretical assumptions. Despite the wealth of evidence on the potential for deliberation, scholars have remained hesitant to test the theoretical premises under rather more adverse circumstances. This article, in contrast, tries to push deliberative scholarship to its edge by focusing on the viability of citizen deliberation in deeply divided societies. Our research questions are whether contact between citizens of competing segments undermines the potential for deliberation, and under which institutional conditions this is so. Based on a deliberative experiment in Belgium, in which we varied the group composition and the decision-making rule, we argue that decision rules are strong predictors of deliberative quality, but more importantly that the confrontation between citizens from both sides of the divide does not undermine the quality of deliberation. On the contrary even, our results indicate that the quality of intergroup deliberation is higher than that of intragroup deliberation, no matter what the rule.
27
Kim, Won Dong. "Complement to James S. Fishkin’s Theory of Deliberative Democracy : Focusing on Representative, Deliberation, Political Equality of Edmund Burke, John Stuart Mill." Korean Association of Regional Sociology 23, no. 3 (December 31, 2022): 5–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.35175/krs.2022.23.3.5.
Full textAbstract:
James S. Fishkin is one of the major theorists who have intensively studied on the problem of deliberation from the beginning of the theory of deliberative democracy. Theory of citizen-led deliberative democracy could be understood as the latest type of democracy in his typology of democracy. But, his theory of deliberative democracy involves some internal limitations. For example, the analyses of both the role of political representation in the history of Western democracies and changes in its character are not sufficiently reflected in Fishkin’s theory of democracy. Especially, the connection from elite deliberation to civic-led deliberation does not seem to be smooth. From this viewpoint, this study aims to complement Fishkin’s theory of deliberative democracy by examining representation, deliberation, and political equality suggested by Edmund Burke and John Stuart Mill. This attempt is expected to contribute to strengthen the historical, empirical, and theoretical foundations on the function of representation and the main agents of deliberation which are needed for the elaboration of Fishkin's theory of deliberative democracy.
28
BARABAS, JASON. "How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions." American Political Science Review 98, no. 4 (November 2004): 687–701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0003055404041425.
Full textAbstract:
Theorists argue that deliberation promotes enlightenment and consensus, but scholars do not know how deliberation affects policy opinions. Using the deliberative democracy and public opinion literatures as a guide, I develop a theory of opinion updating where citizens who deliberate revise their prior beliefs, particularly when they encounter consensual messages. A key aspect of this model is that opinion strength moderates the deliberative opinion change process. In two separate propensity score analyses using panel survey data from a deliberative forum and cross-sectional surveys, I show how deliberation and discussion both affect opinions toward Social Security reform. However, deliberation differs from ordinary discussion in that participants soften strongly held views, encounter different perspectives, and learn readily. Thus, deliberation increases knowledge and alters opinions, but it does so selectively based on the quality and diversity of the messages as well as the willingness of participants to keep an open mind.
29
O’Malley, Eoin, David M. Farrell, and Jane Suiter. "Does talking matter? A quasi-experiment assessing the impact of deliberation and information on opinion change." International Political Science Review 41, no. 3 (April 10, 2019): 321–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192512118824459.
Full textAbstract:
Deliberative democracy is for many the most significant development in democratic theory in the last 50 years and it has been used in some places to solve real-world policy problems. However, measuring the impact of deliberative methods is not clearly achievable because several independent variables are manipulated simultaneously. One of the main goals of deliberation is opinion change and thus it is important to understand why opinions change. This paper utilises comparison groups in order to isolate the impact of deliberation from information in the deliberative process. We outline the results of a quasi-experiment in which deliberation took place in a citizens’ assembly (CA) in Ireland. As part of this we measured the impact using pre- and post-test controls, including a group given the information the CA participants received, but without the deliberation. The results of the analysis provide evidence of a separate deliberation effect.
30
WILSON, JAMES LINDLEY. "Deliberation, Democracy, and the Rule of Reason in Aristotle's Politics." American Political Science Review 105, no. 2 (April 28, 2011): 259–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0003055411000086.
Full textAbstract:
Deliberative democratic theorists argue that important moral questions turn on whether regimes are sufficiently deliberative. To attribute “deliberativeness” to a regime, we need an account of “deliberative integration” that connects such a holistic assessment to the acts or qualities of individuals and smaller groups. I turn to Aristotle's Politics for instruction in developing such accounts, arguing that he judges regimes according to how reliably they act pursuant to excellent common deliberation—a manner of excellent rule that I call the “rule of reason.” I then interpret Aristotle's metaphorical argument for the “wisdom of the multitude” to establish the claim that democracies may best integrate citizens’ deliberations. This interpretation illuminates Aristotle's complex evaluation of regimes, including his ambivalent views on the rule of the many. It also suggests a structure for contemporary accounts of deliberative integration helpful even for those who differ from Aristotle in their basic moral concerns.
31
Magalhães, Suzana de Cassia Serrão, and Danila Cal. "DELIBERAÇÃO E COMUNICAÇÃO: APROXIMAÇÕES CONCEITUAIS PARA A CRIAÇÃO DE CAPACIDADES DELIBERATIVAS EM ESCOLAS." Aturá - Revista Pan-Amazônica de Comunicação 3, no. 1 (January 16, 2019): 48–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.20873/uft.2526-8031.2019v3n1p48.
Full textAbstract:
O presente trabalho tem como objetivo compreender como o processo comunicativo contribui para a realização de capacitações em deliberação em escolas públicas no Brasil. Aborda-se os conceitos de dupla afetação e reflexividade (MEAD, 2013), deliberação pública e agir comunicativo (HABERMAS, 1997, 2003), e pedagogia deliberativa (SHAFFER et al., 2017). Adiante, o estudo avança para desentranhar o processo comunicativo (BRAGA, 2011) dos conceitos, por meio de uma abordagem relacional da comunicação (FRANÇA, 2016). O trabalho traz contribuições teóricas para promover a prática e o treinamento em deliberação, em que os sujeitos implicados podem, por meio de processos argumentativos, estimular e provocar transformações políticas e sociais.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: agir comunicativo; deliberação; educação; pedagogia deliberativa; processos comunicacionais.
ABSTRACT
The present paper aims to understand how the communicative process contributes to enable deliberative capacities in youngs in public schools in Brazil. The concepts of double affectation and reflexivity (MEAD, 2013), public deliberation and communicative action (Habermas, 1997, 2003) and deliberative pedagogy (SHAFFER et al., 2017) are discussed. Later, the study advances to describe the communicative process (BRAGA, 2011) in the concepts, through relational communication (FRANCE, 2016). The work brings theoretical contributions to promote practice and training in deliberation, in which the subjects involved can through stimulating processes and provoke political and social transformations.
KEYWORDS: communicative action; deliberation; education; deliberative pedagogy; communicational process.
RESUMEN
El presente trabajo tiene como objetivo comprender cómo el proceso comunicativo contribuye a la realización de capacitaciones en deliberación en escuelas públicas en Brasil. Se abordan los conceptos de doble afectación y reflexividad (MEAD, 2013), deliberación pública y acción comunicativa (HABERMAS, 1997, 2003), y pedagogía deliberativa (SHAFFER et al., 2017). Adelante, el estudio avanza para desentrañar el proceso comunicativo (BRAGA, 2011) de los conceptos, através de un abordaje relacional de la comunicación (FRANCIA, 2016). El trabajo trae contribuciones teóricas para promover la práctica y el entrenamiento en deliberación, en que los sujetos implicados pueden por medio de procesos argumentativos estimular y provocar transformaciones políticas y sociales.
PALABRAS CLAVE: acción comunicativa; deliberación; educación; pedagogia deliberativa; proceso comunicativo.
32
Roger, Léa, and Gary S. Schaal. "The Quality of Deliberation in Two Committees of the European Parliament: The Neglected Influence of the Situational Context and the Policymaking Stage." Politics and Governance 1, no. 2 (October 9, 2013): 151–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/pag.v1i2.101.
Full textAbstract:
In our paper we try to answer two empirical research questions. First, we assess the deliberative quality of discussions in two committees of the EU Parliament. In order to do so, we use a slightly revised version of the DQI. Second, we identify and empirically measure those variables that systematically influence the quality of deliberation in interviews with debate actors. We argue that the quality of deliberation in EU committees is influenced by two normative values: deliberation (common good orientation) and responsiveness (particular interest orientation), with the guiding value determined by the particular situation. Using a multidimensional concept of deliberation, we empirically test the impact of situational variables on specific aspects of deliberative quality. In addition, we take into account the temporal dimension of deliberation.
33
Yusuf, Nasruddin, Abd Latif Samal, and Nurlaila Harun. "The Deliberation System in Islamic Politics and Leadership of Islamic Organizations in North Sulawesi Province, Indonesia." Khazanah Sosial 4, no. 1 (March 12, 2022): 107–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.15575/ks.v4i1.17140.
Full textAbstract:
This research aims to describe and analyze how the deliberation system in Islamic politics and leadership conducted by the Prophet and his caliphs with the system of deliberation in Islamic politics and leadership conducted by Islamic organizations in North Sulawesi Province. This research is descriptive qualitative research. To get the data, the researcher did interviews with several managers from the three Islamic Organizations: the Muhammadiyah, the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and the Syarikat Islam (SI). Documentation data is also carried out to find out the annual work program and management activities. The results showed that Islamic organizations such as Muhammadiyah, NU and SI also conducted deliberations. Muhammadiyah holds deliberations every five years and involves regional managers, branches, and sub-branches. Muhammadiyah's political stance is not affiliated with political parties and focuses on the development of people who are knowledgeable and intelligent. Then, the concept of the NU deliberation is also contained in its household article. The NU conducts regional deliberations involving branch managers and sub-branch managers. The Nu's vision and mission is to become a religious and civic organization. The SI also conducts deliberations, namely annual deliberation, and daily deliberation. In its concept and perspective, the SI will further strengthen the organization's commitment through a populist economy and preaching based on the Qur'an and hadith. Thus, there are differences of views and principle related to the deliberation system of the Islamic politics and leadership from the three Islamic organizations even though the legal basis is the same, namely the Qur'an and Hadith.
34
Calder, Gideon. "Caring about Deliberation, Deliberating about Care." Ethics and Social Welfare 9, no. 2 (March 10, 2015): 130–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2015.1005554.
Full text
35
Nakagawa, Yoshito. "Theorizing Postcolonial Deliberation and Deliberative Peacebuilding." Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 12, no. 2 (April 3, 2018): 253–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2018.1464353.
Full text
36
Avery, Patricia G., Sara A. Levy, and Annette M. M. Simmons. "Secondary Students and the Deliberation of Public Issues." PS: Political Science & Politics 47, no. 04 (October 2014): 849–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1049096514001164.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACTNine secondary teachers who were taught to use one model of deliberation, Structured Academic Controversy (SAC) (Johnson and Johnson 1979), were matched with nine teachers in their schools who taught similar grade levels and subjects. Teachers in the Deliberation Classes engaged students in three deliberations across six months. Deliberations focused on current public issues, such as whether violent juvenile offenders should be tried as adults. Five of the nine classroom pairs were analyzed using both pre- and post-questionnaires. There were no statistically significant differences in the pre- and post-questionnaire responses of students in the Deliberation Classes (n = 244) and Comparison Classes (n = 249) in terms of self-reported issue knowledge. Variance in student opinion in the Deliberation Classes showed a significant decrease. Students in the Deliberation Classes (n = 297) demonstrated greater perspective-taking abilities than students in the Comparison Classes (n = 238). Within classes, diversity of opinion regarding issues was evident.
37
Fishkin, James S. "DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND CONSTITUTIONS." Social Philosophy and Policy 28, no. 1 (November 30, 2010): 242–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0265052510000129.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis paper examines the potential role of deliberative democracy in constitutional processes of higher law-making, either for the founding of constitutions or for constitutional change. It defines deliberative democracy as the combination of political equality and deliberation and situates this form of democracy in contrast to a range of alternatives. It then considers two contrasting processes—elite deliberation and plebiscitary mass democracy (embodied in referenda) as approaches to higher law-making that employ deliberation without political equality or political equality without deliberation. It finally turns to some institutional designs that might achieve both fundamental values at the same time, or in the process of realizing a sequence of choices.
38
Qin, Xuan, and Baogang He. "Deliberation, demobilization, and limited empowerment: a survey study on participatory pricing in China." Japanese Journal of Political Science 19, no. 4 (December 2018): 694–708. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1468109918000300.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractAuthoritarian deliberation has been used widely to describe the specific form of deliberation developed in China. However, whether its practice will strengthen authoritarianism or lead to democratization remains unknown. In this study, we examine this question from the perspective of participants in public deliberation. Surveying the participants in participatory pricings held in Shanghai over the past 5 years, we find that participants’ perception of deliberative quality has a statistically significant negative impact on their level of political activism, while their level of empowerment has a moderating effect on this negative relationship. In this light, Chinese deliberative practices characterized by high-quality deliberation and low-level empowerment are likely to have a demobilization effect; thus, they reinforce the authoritarian rules.
39
Dryzek, John S. "Democratization as Deliberative Capacity Building." Comparative Political Studies 42, no. 11 (April 7, 2009): 1379–402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0010414009332129.
Full textAbstract:
Effective deliberation is central to democracy and so should enter any definition of democratization. However, the deliberative aspect now ubiquitous in the theory, practice, and promotion of democracy is generally missing in comparative studies of democratization. Deliberation capacity can be distributed in variable ways in the deliberative systems of states and other polities. A framework is described for locating and analyzing the contributions of its components and so evaluating the degree to which a polity’s deliberative system is authentic, inclusive, and consequential. An emphasis on deliberation reveals important determinants of democratic transition and consolidation, thereby providing substantial explanatory as well as evaluative and normative purchase.
40
Lenzi, Dominic. "Deliberating about Climate Change: The Case for ‘Thinking and Nudging’." Moral Philosophy and Politics 6, no. 2 (November 18, 2019): 313–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mopp-2018-0034.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Proponents of deliberative democracy believe deliberation provides the best chance of finding effective and legitimate climate policies. However, in many societies there is substantial evidence of biased cognition and polarisation about climate change. Further, many appear unable to distinguish reliable scientific information from false claims or misinformation. While deliberation significantly reduces polarisation about climate change, and can even increase the provision of reliable beliefs, these benefits are difficult to scale up, and are slow to affect whole societies. In response, I propose a combined strategy of ‘thinking and nudging’. While deliberative theorists tend to view nudging askance, combining deliberation with nudges promises to be a timelier and more effective response to climate change than deliberation alone. I outline several proposals to improve societal deliberative capacity while reducing climate risks, including media reform, strategic communication and framing of debates, incentivising pro-climate behaviour change, and better education about science.
41
Witt, Brian. "Evaluating the Effects of a Minimalist Deliberative Framework on the Willingness to Participate in a Payment for Ecosystem Services Program." Resources 8, no. 2 (June 15, 2019): 112. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/resources8020112.
Full textAbstract:
When compared with other stated preference valuation methodologies, deliberative valuation gives participants more time and information, potentially resulting in more valid and reliable estimations and higher participant confidence. However, it also has weaknesses, such as small sample sizes, lower participant diversity, and high costs. This paper proses a minimalist framework for deliberation that increases sample size and lowers the cost per participant through short, structured deliberative sessions and the use of deliberative sub-groups. A case study was conducted with 192 landholders in south-eastern Mexico, examining how participants’ perceptions of benefits from communal forest lands would impact their willingness to accept (WTA) comparatively lower payments to participate in a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) program. The results suggest that a majority of landholders would accept a lower payment level to participate in a PES program over a degradative alternative, with 45.5% of participants surveyed willing to accept a 45% reduction in payments to participate in the PES program. The minimalist framework had an impact on participants’ rate of acceptance, with a 13.8% increase in the percentage of participants willing to accept the PES offer post-deliberation. The impact on participant confidence was stronger, with a 31.2% increase in the percentage of participants expressing confidence in their choice after deliberations.
42
Hobson, Kersty. "On the Modern and the Nonmodern in Deliberative Environmental Democracy." Global Environmental Politics 9, no. 4 (November 2009): 64–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/glep.2009.9.4.64.
Full textAbstract:
The “deliberative turn” in green political theory and applied environmental decision-making is now well-established. However, questions remain about the applicability of its concepts and methods to non-Western or “nonmodern” contexts, to use a term from Gupte and Barlett's 2007 article in this journal that is the stimulus to this article. In such places the societal pre-conditions of modernity deemed theoretically necessary for “authentic deliberation” to occur are mostly absent. Yet, authentic deliberation does take place, prompting questions about the geographical and cultural bias of the deliberative environmental democratic project. This article takes up such questions, arguing that in deliberative theory modernity is more than a bias, which is highlighted when the nonmodern is counted in. Instead, in its noun-form modernity suggests a particular type of deliberating subject, replete with specific capacities and knowledge, which the nonmodern is, in true binary fashion, deemed to lack. This article draws on qualitative data from deliberative workshops in northern New Mexico, USA, to argue that such categorizations do not hold up to empirical or conceptual scrutiny, particularly in light of Bruno Latour's work on modernity and the Modern. Thus, this article argues that deliberative environmental democracy research should therefore be recast as an ethnographic and context-based project, and explores how such a project could be carried out.
43
PENDERGRAFT, GARRETT. "Against deliberation restrictions." Religious Studies 50, no. 3 (March 28, 2014): 341–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0034412514000043.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractTraditional views about God and about deliberation seem to imply that we need a deliberation restriction on the concept of divine omniscience. I will argue, however, that this deliberation restriction is both irrelevant and unnecessary. It is irrelevant because there is no time at which God needs to deliberate; and it is unnecessary because even if God does deliberate, it's possible for him to do so while knowing what the results of that deliberation will be. And because this possibility of deliberating despite knowing the results holds for deliberation in general, my argument provides useful (and perhaps surprising) results not only for discussions of the divine attributes, but also for broader discussions of deliberation itself.
44
Gerber, Marlène, André Bächtiger, Susumu Shikano, Simon Reber, and Samuel Rohr. "Deliberative Abilities and Influence in a Transnational Deliberative Poll (EuroPolis)." British Journal of Political Science 48, no. 4 (September 15, 2016): 1093–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0007123416000144.
Full textAbstract:
This article investigates the deliberative abilities of ordinary citizens in the context of ‘EuroPolis’, a transnational deliberative poll. Drawing upon a philosophically grounded instrument, an updated version of the Discourse Quality Index (DQI), it explores how capable European citizens are of meeting deliberative ideals; whether socio-economic, cultural and psychological biases affect the ability to deliberate; and whether opinion change results from the exchange of arguments. On the positive side, EuroPolis shows that the ideal deliberator scoring high on all deliberative standards does actually exist, and that participants change their opinions more often when rational justification is used in the discussions. On the negative side, deliberative abilities are unequally distributed: in particular, working-class members are less likely to contribute to a high standard of deliberation.
45
Mazor, Joseph. "The Case for Citizen Duty." Social Theory and Practice 46, no. 1 (2020): 143–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract20201676.
Full textAbstract:
This article defends a novel type of institutionalized mass deliberation: Citizen Duty. Citizen Duty would legally require every citizen to engage in one day of diverse, moderated political deliberation prior to major elections. This deliberation would realize a variety of benefits, including wiser electoral decisions and a more respectful electoral process, while avoiding the dangers of citizen deliberation. A comparison with jury duty and with non-deliberative alternatives suggests that Citizen Duty’s substantial economic and liberty costs are justified. Finally, an examination of citizen attitudes towards politics and deliberation suggests that Citizen Duty is not as quixotic as it first appears.
46
Cohen, Yishai. "Deliberating in the presence of manipulation." Canadian Journal of Philosophy 48, no. 1 (2018): 85–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2017.1339177.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractAccording to deliberation compatibilism, rational deliberation is compatible with the belief that one’s actions are causally determined by factors beyond one’s control. This paper offers a counterexample to recent accounts of rational deliberation that entail deliberation compatibilism. The counterexample involves a deliberator who believes that whichever action she performs will be the result of deterministic manipulation. It is further argued that there is no relevant difference between the purported counterexample and ordinary doxastic circumstances in which a determinist deliberates.
47
Wolkenstein, Fabio. "Intra-party democracy beyond aggregation." Party Politics 24, no. 4 (June 21, 2016): 323–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354068816655563.
Full textAbstract:
Contemporary scholarship on intra-party democracy pays a great deal of attention to aggregative procedures like primaries or membership ballots but widely ignores deliberative procedures within parties. This article begins by highlighting why scholars should care about deliberation within parties, discussing several functions intra-party deliberation is said to serve in the democratic theory literature. It then goes on to explore the deliberative credentials of political discussion between party members, drawing on group interviews with party members in two Social Democratic parties in Germany and Austria. Two issues are investigated: the preconditions for deliberation among party members and their justificatory patterns. The results of the analysis suggest that parties can be genuine vehicles of deliberation, and thus point towards a research programme on intra-party democracy that differs quite starkly from that which prevails.
48
Boswell, John, and Jack Corbett. "Deliberative Bureaucracy: Reconciling Democracy’s Trade-off Between Inclusion and Economy." Political Studies 66, no. 3 (October 2, 2017): 618–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0032321717723512.
Full textAbstract:
Deliberative democrats have long considered the trade-off between norms of inclusion and efficiency. The latest attempt at reconciliation is the deliberative systems model, which situates and links individual sites of deliberation in their macro context. Yet, critics argue that this move to scale up leaves inclusive practices of citizen deliberation vulnerable. Here, we seek to mitigate these concerns via an unlikely source: bureaucracy. Drawing on the notion of policy feedback, with its attendant focus on how policies (re)make democratic politics, we envision a deliberative bureaucracy where implementation and service delivery are imbued with norms of justification, publicity and, most radically, inclusion. Looking at promising contemporary governance practices, we argue that a deliberative bureaucracy, with the rich public encounters it might foster, can reconcile the desire to scale up deliberative democracy to whole systems with the desire to hold on to the benefits of scaled-down citizen deliberation.
49
Winograd, Willoughby J., and Alice Siu. "Depolarizing Through Deliberation in Civics Education: A Case Study of Like-Minded High School Students." Good Society 31, no. 1-2 (June 2022): 86–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.5325/goodsociety.31.1-2.0086.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract This article presents a successful example of fostering pluralism by reducing affective polarization through facilitated conversations. Drawing from the results of a Deliberative Polling experiment, this article finds significant depolarization and moderation as a result of deliberation on policy issues by like-minded high school students who predominantly self-identified as liberal. While critics of deliberation are concerned with like-minded participants becoming more extreme and living in echo chambers, this article shows that Deliberative Polling, even among like-minded individuals can depolarize. Deliberation of eighteen economic and healthcare reform proposals by thirty-eight groups of participants demonstrated no systematic trend of group polarization. A split-half experimental design allowed inference that deliberation was not just correlated with but caused decreases in both affective and issue polarization. Remarkably, deliberation not only moderated opinions on the issues deliberated, but also moderated opinions on related issues not deliberated. The deliberation procedures necessary to achieve such an outcome are discussed, including not setting consensus as a goal, providing supplementary information, and moderating discussions. After a literature review, the methods of the experiment are detailed, followed by a discussion of the results and a brief conclusion about future prospects for bridge building.
50
Strandberg, Kim. "Designing for democracy?: an experimental study comparing the outcomes of citizen discussions in online forums with those of online discussions in a forum designed according to deliberative principles." European Political Science Review 7, no. 3 (November 21, 2014): 451–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1755773914000265.
Full textAbstract:
Democratic theorists often envision public deliberation as being essential to the working of democracy. Several scholars have also highlighted a potential for realising such deliberations on the internet. Consequentially, an emerging array of experiments in online deliberation has now been developed to achieve online discussions, which would be beneficial for democracy. However, few studies have yet attempted to compare the outcomes of online mini-publics to online citizens’ discussions in general. This article, thus, concerns an online experiment carried out in 2013 with the purpose of examining whether, and under which conditions, forums designed according to deliberative principles produce better ‘democratic outcomes’ – such as coherence of opinions, increased efficacy, trust, and propensity for civic participation – than online citizens’ discussions, which are ‘left to their own devices’. The study applies a post-test only, 2×2 factorial design, with a control group. In total, N=70 participants taking part in the experiment. The findings indicate that the effects of designing for deliberation were generally positive, albeit not for all of the democratic outcomes. In addition, methodological issues of relevance for the internal and external validity of the current experiment, which could be of relevance for future studies, are also brought forth.