Public Deliberation Consortium
Not a member yet
327 research outputs found
Sort by
Review of Everyone Counts: Could Participatory Budgeting Change Democracy by Josh Lerner (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2014) and Making Democracy Fun: How Game Design Can Empower Citizens and Transform Politics by Josh Lerner (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014).
No full textReview of Everyone Counts: Could Participatory Budgeting Change Democracy by Josh Lerner (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2014) and Making Democracy Fun: How Game Design Can Empower Citizens and Transform Politics by Josh Lerner (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014)
Public Engagement with Internet Voting in Edmonton: Design, Outcomes, and Challenges to Deliberative Models
No full textIn September 2012, the City of Edmonton launched a four-month strategy to engage a range of citizens in the development of a policy proposal for the use of Internet voting in civic elections. A variety of initiatives were implemented, including public opinions surveys, roundtable advisory meetings with seniors and other stakeholder, and a mock “Jellybean” online election to test the technology. At the core of the public involvement campaign was a Citizens’ Jury – a deliberative forum which engaged a group of citizens, demographically and attitudinally representative of the city’s population, in assessment of Internet voting and the development of recommendations to city council. While the Jury reached a verdict supportive of Internet voting, policymakers in Edmonton rejected the policy proposal. In light of the Edmonton experience, we highlight factors that contribute to the ineffectiveness of deliberative experiments and discuss some challenges for public participation at the local level
Leaders’ Response to Terrorism: The Role of Epideictic Rhetoric in Deliberative Democracies
No full textNew initiatives in deliberative democracy theory allow for a broader understanding of the different rhetorical practices that influence deliberation in real life settings. This solves the “problem” rhetoricians have long had with deliberative theory: that political communication is reduced to rational deliberation, disregarding a lot of non-deliberative forms of communication that are essential for the formation of public opinion and political decisions. This article elaborates on the role of epideictic rhetoric and provides an example as to how we might benefit from combining the two theoretical traditions. Often reduced to ceremonial practice, the epideictic genre has long been overlooked in political communication research. However, epideictic rhetoric plays a crucial role in shaping collective identity and values, thereby influencing citizens’ and politicians’ inclinations and scope of action in future deliberation. The article is concluded by a case study of the Norwegian Prime Minster Jens Stoltenberg’s address to the nation after the terrorist attack in Oslo on July 22nd 2011. By enforcing collective values such as democracy, solidarity, and openness towards other cultures the Prime Minister’s speech contributed to what became one of the dominant frames through which the attack and related issues were interpreted and debated
Review of From Deliberation to Demonstration: Political Rallies in France, 1868-1939, by Paula Cossart, trans. Clare Tame (Colchester, UK: ECPR Press, 2013).
No full textReview of From Deliberation to Demonstration: Political Rallies in France, 1868-1939, by Paula Cossart, trans. Clare Tame (Colchester, UK: ECPR Press, 2013)
Gender and Public Issues Deliberations in Named and Anonymous Online Environments
No full textOnline deliberations in social studies classrooms are increasingly feasible as more schools incorporate online learning environments into their programs. The present study investigates student participation in online deliberations with particular attention to (1) the differences between opinion expression and participation in anonymous versus named conditions, (2) whether the magnitude of any such differences varies by gender, (3) whether males and females express a preference for deliberation in named or anonymous online environments, and (4) the impact of named and anonymous environments on developing students’ deliberative skills. When opinion expression and participation results are analyzed by gender, we find that differences between females and males that manifest in named conditions disappear when discussing anonymously. We find that female students are significantly more likely to prefer discussing in anonymous environments. Finally, we find that students deliberating anonymously express more opinions in a subsequent deliberation than those in the named condition
Democratic Innovations in Deliberative Systems – The Case of the Estonian Citizens’ Assembly Process
No full textWith the proliferation and application of democratic innovations around the world, the empirical study of deliberative and participatory processes has shifted from small-scale environments and experiments to real-life political processes on a large scale. With this shift, there is also a need to explore new theoretical approaches in order to understand current developments. Instead of analyzing democratic innovations in isolation, the recent ‘systemic turn’ in the field encourages us to broaden our perspective and evaluate democratic innovations as complementary parts of a political system.
This paper will draw upon a qualitative case study, based on interview and supported by survey data, of the ‘Estonian Citizens’ Assembly Process’ (ECA), in order to operationalize the systemic approach to deliberative democracy and illustrate how this can be applied to an analysis of democratic innovations.
The ECA spanned more than a year (November 2012 to April 2014) and covered three political arenas: the public sphere, democratic innovations and representative institutions. The systemic analysis highlights the deliberative strengths and weaknesses of arenas and institutions, and illuminates how various arenas and democratic innovations did and did not complement one another in the creation of a deliberative process. The systemic analysis offers two possible interpretations of the ECA. The more affirmative interpretation is it constituted a deliberative system, as it did perform the three main functions fulfilled by different arenas and institutions. The more critical interpretation is that the ECA partly failed to be a deliberative system, due to social domination and decoupling of institutions
Assessing the Public’s Views on Prison and Prison Alternatives: Findings from Public Deliberation Research in Three Australian Cities
No full textConsistent with other high income countries in the West, prisons are being built or expanded in every Australian state and territory to house increasing numbers of prisoners. Despite decreasing crime victimisation rates in Australia, incarceration rates have doubled over the last thirty years. Australia’s use of imprisonment has major economic and social equity costs, especially given the over-representation of Indigenous Australians and other socially disadvantaged groups in prison. Evidence increasingly points to the limitation of incarceration as a tool for effective offender rehabilitation suggesting that a new policy agenda on responses to offending is warranted. Yet, public opinion is generally assessed and perceived to hold punitive views towards offenders. Such views are typically assessed using non-deliberative opinion polls. Research and perceived public opinion of this kind can be an obstacle to policy reform and a justification for prison expansion. This paper reports on a project that uses a Citizens Jury approach in three Australian cities. The aim of these Citizens Juries was to provide an opportunity for citizens to critically engage in and deliberate on the issues that underlie offending, and society’s responses to it. This paper provides substantive insight into the considered views of members of the public on issues of criminal justice and makes recommendations about the value of the Citizens Jury method to explore public opinion on criminal justice issues. This has broader implications for the use of deliberative methodologies in other highly politicised public policy fields
Symbolic-Cognitive Proceduralism: A Model of Deliberative Legitimacy
No full textBurkhalter et al.’s (2002) self-reinforcing model of democratic deliberation is well established, but lacks an account of legitimacy, which is a key element of most democratic-deliberative theories. We extend Burkhalter et al.’s model by proposing a new model called “symbolic-cognitive proceduralism,” which explains how democratic-deliberative processes generate legitimacy, and how such legitimacy contributes to the social reproduction of deliberation. Our proposed model accounts for perceived and normative legitimacy, at interpersonal and macro-social levels of analysis, over short and long time-spans, and accords with substantial empirical evidence
Review of Governing Biodiversity through Democratic Deliberation by Mikko Rask and Richard Worthington (New York: Routledge, 2015.)
No full textReview of Governing Biodiversity through Democratic Deliberation by Mikko Rask and Richard Worthington (New York: Routledge, 2015.
Deliberating While Voting: The Antecedents, Dynamics, And Consequences Of Talking While Completing Ballots In Two Vote-By-Mail States
No full textAn overlooked context for citizen deliberation occurs when voters discuss their ballots with others while completing them at home. Voting by mail (or “absentee voting”) creates an opportunity for informal deliberation in the midst of exercising a basic form of citizen power. We examined this understudied context by blending prior theory with qualitative observations of dyadic and small-group absentee voter discussions to identify common features of such talk, which range from cynical joking and speculation on election outcomes to observing norms of politeness and engaging in heated argument. The hypothesized antecedents and consequences of those behaviors were examined in a survey of 295 Washington and Oregon voters’ recollections of their ballot discussions. Results showed that pro-deliberative features of discussion were reported most often by voters with more formal education and political knowledge. Contrary to hypotheses, the strength of voters’ partisan identities bore no relation to deliberative behavior. Finally, the presence of key discussion features had many of the expected effects on voters’ confidence in ballot choices and their respect for the electoral process, particularly for those voters with less political knowledge