Relevant bibliographies by topics / Deliberative Minipublics

Academic literature on the topic 'Deliberative Minipublics'

Author: Grafiati
Published: 10 December 2022
Last updated: 28 January 2023

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Contents

Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Deliberative Minipublics.'

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.

Journal articles on the topic "Deliberative Minipublics"

1

Ingham, Sean, and Ines Levin. "Can Deliberative Minipublics Influence Public Opinion? Theory and Experimental Evidence." Political Research Quarterly 71, no. 3 (February 19, 2018): 654–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1065912918755508.

Full text
Abstract:
Deliberative minipublics are small groups of citizens who deliberate together about a policy issue and convey their conclusions to decision makers. Theorists have argued that deliberative minipublics can give observers evidence about counterfactual, “enlightened” public opinion—what the people would think about an issue if they had the opportunity to deliberate with their fellow citizens. If the conclusions of a deliberative minipublic are received in this spirit and members of the public revise their opinions upon learning them, then deliberative minipublics could be a means of bringing actual public opinion into closer conformity with counterfactual, enlightened public opinion. We formalize a model of this theory and report the results of a survey experiment designed to test its predictions. The experiment produced evidence that learning the conclusions of a deliberative minipublic influenced respondents’ policy opinions, bringing them into closer conformity with the opinions of the participants in the deliberative minipublic.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Jennstål, Julia. "Deliberative participation and personality: the effect of traits, situations, and motivation." European Political Science Review 10, no. 3 (February 20, 2018): 417–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1755773918000024.

Full text
Abstract:
Inclusiveness is essential to deliberative democracy, but factors influencing citizens’ willingness to participate in deliberation need to be better understood. In the case of deliberative minipublics, demographic, and attitudinal attributes demonstrably correlate with willingness to participate, and thus arguably affect the inclusiveness of deliberative events. Similarly, features of deliberative situations also influence participation – whether it will be decisive, for example. However, what is lacking is a framework for how individual and situational characteristics interact, and the role of background political and cultural settings in influencing this dynamic. Advances in personality psychology offers a useful framework for addressing this lacuna, as well as providing tools for understanding how effective participation can be enhanced. In this article, I explore how personality interacts with situational features to influence patterns of deliberative participation, as well as the motivations that are associated. These effects are illustrated by drawing on data from a field experiment, involving minipublic deliberation in Sweden on the issue of begging by internal EU migrants. The findings support the relevance of personality as a predictor of participation in deliberation, which interacts with features of deliberative situations to induce particular motivations to either participate or refuse.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

Fishkin, James. "Cristina Lafont’s Challenge to Deliberative Minipublics." Journal of Deliberative Democracy 16, no. 2 (2020): 56–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.16997/jdd.394.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

Knobloch, Katherine R., Michael L. Barthel, and John Gastil. "Emanating Effects: The Impact of the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review on Voters’ Political Efficacy." Political Studies 68, no. 2 (June 6, 2019): 426–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0032321719852254.

Full text
Abstract:
Deliberative processes can alter participants’ attitudes and behavior, but deliberative minipublics connected to macro-level discourse may also influence the attitudes of non-participants. We theorize that changes in political efficacy occur when non-participants become aware of a minipublic and utilize its deliberative outputs in their decision making during an election. Statewide survey data on the 2010 and 2012 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Reviews tested the link between awareness and use of the Citizens’ Initiative Review Statements and statewide changes in internal and external political efficacy. Results from a longitudinal 2010 panel survey show that awareness of the Citizens’ Initiative Reviews increases respondents’ external efficacy, whereas use of the Citizens’ Initiative Review Statements on ballot measures increases respondents’ internal efficacy. A cross-sectional 2012 survey found the same associations. Moreover, the 2010 survey showed that greater exposure to—and confidence in—deliberative outputs was associated with higher levels of both internal and external efficacy.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

Gastil, John. "The Lessons and Limitations of Experiments in Democratic Deliberation." Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14, no. 1 (October 13, 2018): 271–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113639.

Full text
Abstract:
Experiments are essential to the practice of democratic deliberation, which itself is an experimental remedy to the problem of self-governance. This field, however, is constrained by the impossibility of conducting ecologically valid experiments that take into account the full complexity of deliberative theory, which spans different levels of analysis and has a multidimensional variable at its core. Nonetheless, informative patterns have emerged from the dozens of lab studies, survey experiments, and quasi-experiments in the field conducted to date. This body of work shows the feasibility of gathering diverse samples of people to deliberate, but it also underscores the difficulties that arise in deliberation, including extreme disagreement, poor conflict management, and how a lack of diversity can forestall meaningful disagreement. When public engagement strategies and discussion formats mitigate those hazards, deliberation can improve participants’ understanding of issues, sharpen their judgments, and change their attitudes toward civic engagement. Well-publicized deliberative minipublics can even influence wider public opinion and voting intentions.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

Steel, Daniel, Naseeb Bolduc, Kristina Jenei, and Michael Burgess. "Rethinking Representation and Diversity in Deliberative Minipublics." Journal of Deliberative Democracy 16, no. 1 (2020): 46–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.16997/jdd.398.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

Gerber, Marlène. "Equal Partners in Dialogue? Participation Equality in a Transnational Deliberative Poll (Europolis)." Political Studies 63, no. 1_suppl (December 10, 2014): 110–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12183.

Full text
Abstract:
By gathering a representative sample of citizens from all 27 EU Member States, the deliberative poll Europolis created the opportunity for the inclusion of a wide variety of European voices. Taking up claims of difference democrats who argue that informal hurdles to participation can endure even after individuals gain formal access to the floor, this article argues for an extended approach to evaluate equality in deliberative minipublics. Specifically, it assesses whether participants contributed in roughly equal measures to the discussion and whether their discussion partners considered their contributions on equal merits. In doing so, the article adds to the small but growing literature on deliberation that expresses reservations about taking the willingness to engage with others' claims for granted. In order to account for the intrinsically relational aspect of interpersonal communication, measures of social network analysis are introduced as possible tools to evaluate participation equality in deliberative encounters.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
8

Davies, Ben B., Kirsty Blackstock, and Felix Rauschmayer. "‘Recruitment’, ‘Composition’, and ‘Mandate’ Issues in Deliberative Processes: Should we Focus on Arguments Rather than Individuals?" Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 23, no. 4 (August 2005): 599–615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/c04112s.

Full text
Abstract:
Public participation in environmental decisionmaking has become an accepted part of Western societies over the last three decades. Whereas on a simple level every democratic process based on aggregating individual preferences contains an element of public participation, the literature on discursive democracy emphasises instead a more subtle, rich, and intense social process of deliberation. In this model, the spectrum of understandings, interests, and values expressed in different discourses is explored in detail by participants before a decision is reached. Although within an idealised model of discursive democracy such deliberations would involve every member of society potentially affected by the issue under discussion, a range of constraints mean that in practice this ideal model can only be approximated by discussions held in various forms of ‘minipublics’, which contain in most cases only a tiny proportion of the relevant community—for example, citizens' juries and consensus conferences. We identify three problem areas concerning the choice of participants in such ‘minipublics’, which we call the ‘recruitment problem’ (how individual participants are chosen to take part), the ‘composition problem’ (what the final composition of the minipublic is), and the ‘mandate problem’ (what role each of the participants assumes within the process). We suggest that most studies have not explicitly distinguished these elements, and consequently the rationale for why the results of such processes should be considered legitimate in either an advisory or a decisionmaking capacity is often unclear. We review the limitations of traditional recruitment methods and suggest a new alternative we consider appropriate for discursive processes—utilising Q methodology as a step in developing a purposive sampling frame for the recruitment phase. Although this approach is not without problems, we suggest that it could potentially offer a better basis on which to address the recruitment problem for those processes seeking to approximate discursively democratic ideals.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
9

Warren, Mark E., and John Gastil. "Can Deliberative Minipublics Address the Cognitive Challenges of Democratic Citizenship?" Journal of Politics 77, no. 2 (April 2015): 562–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/680078.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
10

Stanley, Timothy. "Religious Interactions in Deliberative Democratic Systems Theory." Religions 11, no. 4 (April 22, 2020): 210. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rel11040210.

Full text
Abstract:
The following essay begins by outlining the pragmatist link between truth claims and democratic deliberations. To this end, special attention will be paid to Jeffrey Stout’s pragmatist enfranchisement of religious citizens. Stout defends a deliberative notion of democracy that fulfills stringent criteria of inclusion and security against domination. While mitigating secular exclusivity, Stout nonetheless acknowledges the new visibility of religion in populist attempts to dominate political life through mass rule and charismatic authorities. In response, I evaluate recent innovations in deliberative democratic systems theory (DDST). By adding a pragmatist inflection to DDST, I aim to apprehend the complex religious interactions between partisan interest groups as well as the trust-building capacities of minipublics.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
More sources

Books on the topic "Deliberative Minipublics"

1

Lafont, Cristina. Democracy without Shortcuts. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198848189.001.0001.

Full text
Abstract:
This book articulates a participatory conception of deliberative democracy that takes the democratic ideal of self-government seriously. It aims to improve citizens’ democratic control and vindicate the value of citizens’ participation against conceptions that threaten to undermine it. The book critically analyzes deep pluralist, epistocratic, and lottocratic conceptions of democracy. Their defenders propose various institutional “shortcuts” to help solve problems of democratic governance such as overcoming disagreements, citizens’ political ignorance, or poor-quality deliberation. However, it turns out that these shortcut proposals all require citizens to blindly defer to actors over whose decisions they cannot exercise control. Implementing such proposals would therefore undermine democracy. Moreover, it seems naïve to assume that a community can reach better outcomes “faster” if it bypasses the beliefs and attitudes of its citizens. Unfortunately, there are no “shortcuts” to making a community better than its members. The only road to better outcomes is the long, participatory road that is taken when citizens forge a collective will by changing one another’s hearts and minds. However difficult the process of justifying political decisions to one another may be, skipping it cannot get us any closer to the democratic ideal. Starting from this conviction, the author defends a conception of democracy “without shortcuts.” This conception sheds new light on long-standing debates about the proper scope of public reason, the role of religion in politics, and the democratic legitimacy of judicial review. It also proposes new ways to unleash the democratic potential of institutional innovations such as deliberative minipublics.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Book chapters on the topic "Deliberative Minipublics"

1

Fung, Archon. "Minipublics: Deliberative Designs and Their Consequences." In Deliberation, Participation and Democracy, 159–83. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230591080_8.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Niemeyer, Simon. "Knowledge and the Deliberative Stance in Democratic Systems: Harnessing Scepticism of the Self in Governing Global Environmental Change." In Knowledge for Governance, 269–92. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47150-7_12.

Full text
Abstract:
AbstractModern challenges, such as global environmental change, cannot be dealt with via the generation of knowledge alone. Even in-principle public support requires broad recognition of responsibility to translate knowledge into appropriate action. This cannot be achieved where minds are closed, in which case greater levels of knowledge can actually feed into perverse outcomes. Overcoming these dynamics is facilitated to the extent that individuals adopt a deliberative stance (Owen D, Smith G, J Political Philosophy 23:213–234, 2015), which involves, inter alia, openness to ideas and hastens the rush to judgement on issues involving uncertainty and complexity—a scepticism of the self. In this paper, the author demonstrates the effects of the deliberative stance and the conditions under which it is best achieved. I draw my evidence from small-scale settings described by deliberative minipublics, but the observed mechanisms can be “scaled up” to inform possibilities for wider reform of the processes governing the uptake and use of knowledge.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

Lafont, Cristina. "Lottocratic Institutions from a Participatory Perspective." In Democracy without Shortcuts, 138–60. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198848189.003.0006.

Full text
Abstract:
This chapter explores how we might institutionalize deliberative minipublics in order to serve genuinely democratic goals. In contrast to empowered uses of minipublics that would bypass the citizenry’s political deliberation, citizens could use minipublics for contestatory, vigilant, and anticipatory purposes. These uses of minipublics would improve the quality of deliberation in the public sphere and would also force the political system to take the high road of properly involving the citizenry in the political process. The chapter illustrates these potential forms of “deliberative activism” with the help of examples of actual deliberative polls that James Fishkin has conducted over several decades. This analysis shows how deliberative minipublics can help improve the democratic quality of political deliberation in the public sphere while strengthening citizens’ democratic control over political decisions.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

Lafont, Cristina. "Lottocratic Conceptions of Deliberative Democracy." In Democracy without Shortcuts, 101–37. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198848189.003.0005.

Full text
Abstract:
This chapter analyzes “lottocratic” conceptions of deliberative democracy. Their defenders put their democratic hopes on the generalized use of deliberative minipublics such as citizens’ juries, citizens’ assemblies, and deliberative polls. Some propose conferring political decisional-power upon minipublics as a way of increasing citizens’ democratic control over the political process. Against this view, the chapter argues that such proposals cannot be defended on participatory grounds. By expecting citizens to blindly defer to the political decisions of a randomly selected group of citizens, the generalized use of minipublics for decision-making would decrease rather than increase the citizenry’s ability to take ownership over and identify with the policies to which they are subject, as the democratic ideal of self-government requires. Lottocrats are right to highlight the democratic potential of minipublics. But in order to unleash that potential we must resist the temptation of taking the “micro-deliberative shortcut” and keep our eyes on the macro-deliberative goal. Instead of empowering minipublics to make decisions for the rest of the citizenry, citizens should use minipublics to empower themselves.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

Bächtiger, André, and John Parkinson. "Conclusion." In Mapping and Measuring Deliberation, 152–60. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199672196.003.0008.

Full text
Abstract:
The book concludes with a call to repoliticize deliberative democracy by moving away from an exclusive focus on ‘safe havens’ like minipublics, or environments in which administrative imperatives dominate, and engage more effectively with mass democracy, and thus with comparative political science. It shows how the authors’ reconceptualization of deliberative democracy—its contingent, performative, and distributed nature—is directed to that goal, reconnecting deliberation with democratic principles without denying the importance of direct citizen deliberation. It closes by imagining a deliberative society that is challenged by ‘post-truth’ politics, but argues that an account that puts citizens’ practices of meaning-making at the heart of deliberation reveals effective routes out of the challenges.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

Bächtiger, André, and John Parkinson. "Dissecting the Micro-Deliberative Approach." In Mapping and Measuring Deliberation, 45–65. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199672196.003.0003.

Full text
Abstract:
Chapter three distils lessons about deliberation from two decades of standard, quantitative political science methods in two contexts: deliberative minipublics and parliaments. The discussion reveals that while such pioneering research has generated rich results about preference transformation and citizens’ capacities to engage in quite sophisticated deliberation, it has also tended to treat such venues as closed systems, isolated from their social and political contexts; to over-generalize from what are rare conditions. Related problems with research on parliaments are then discussed. The picture that emerges is highly ambiguous: the classic elements of deliberation turned out not to be a single phenomenon but several, which did not vary in the same direction; and there are trade-offs between deliberative and democratic standards. But there are also important methodological problems that, the chapter argues, means the results give less comfort to sceptics about the value of deliberation.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

Schaal, Gary S., and Fränze Wilhelm. "Deliberative Minipublics. Zur Notwendigkeit einer Theorie der politischen Legitimation von eingebetteten deliberativen Systemen." In Formwandel der Demokratie, 197–222. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.5771/9783845295787-197.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
8

Lafont, Cristina. "Deliberative Minipublics and the Populist Conception of Representation As Embodiment." In Contested Representation, 32–45. Cambridge University Press, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781009267694.004.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
9

Fung, Archon. "Minipublics: Designing Institutionsfor Effective Deliberation andAccountability." In Accountability through Public Opinion, 183–202. The World Bank, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/9780821385050_ch13.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
10

Gastil, John, and Katherine R. Knobloch. "Conclusion." In Hope for Democracy, 159–82. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190084523.003.0012.

Full text
Abstract:
The book’s conclusion details how the Citizen’s Initiative Review (CIR) exemplifies the possibility for democratic reform. This chapter draws on the stories of several deliberative reforms to exemplify their possibilities and pitfalls. Tough some attempts at institutionalization have fallen flat, the CIR has expanded from a pilot in Oregon to a new governing body being tested and proposed across the United States. Other citizen-centered institutions, like juries, have seen similar expansion, bringing greater opportunity for self-governance to citizens across the globe. Though the diffusion of democratic reform may seem idealistic, once immovable policy can shift. One example reviewed in the chapter is same-sex marriage legalization, which swept through the United States as voters and politicians began to understand the perspectives of individuals and communities who had been denied the right to marry. In Ireland, a deliberative minipublic produced a ballot measure to legalize same-sex marriage that won public backing. The chapter, and book, concludes that democratic reform is possible but will not happen unless the public demands it—citizens, activists, politicians, and academics alike.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
You might also be interested in the extended bibliographies on the topic 'Deliberative Minipublics' for particular source types:
Journal articles
We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!

To the bibliography