Public Deliberation Consortium
Not a member yet
327 research outputs found
Sort by
Review of Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement edited by Tina Nabatchi, John Gastil, G. Michael Weiksner, and Matt Leighninger (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).
No full textReview of Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement edited by Tina Nabatchi, John Gastil, G. Michael Weiksner, and Matt Leighninger (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)
The Next Generation of Our Work
No full textIn this reflective piece, Sandy Heierbacher, Director of the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD), outlines some of the trends she has been noticing from her unique vantage point in the rapidly growing and innovating field of deliberative democracy. Heierbacher reflects on ways this field, centered around practices designed to engage citizens in the decisions and issues that effect their lives, is changing its relationship with government, becoming more receptive to online tools for engagement, shifting its attention back to local efforts, focusing attention on building infrastructure, and increasingly relying on collaboration to achieve its goals
The State of Our Field: Introduction to the Special Issue
No full textThis article introduces the special State of the Field issue. The essay highlights some of the key tensions that our field is wrestling with at the moment, and advocates that we think carefully about the terms we use to describe our work. It previews the articles in this special issue and urges future work in the field to take up the ideas, questions, and challenges posed by these essays
Public Deliberation and Co-Production in the Political and Electoral Arena: A Citizens’ Jury Approach
No full textThis study presents an empirical evaluation of the co-production of a “Statement to the Candidates” and a “Voters Guide” for a key U.S. Congressional race. Citizens produced these materials during an intensive process called “Reclaim November Ohio,” which used the Citizen Jury method of public deliberation. We use a series of pre- and post-test surveys to evaluate this unique application of co-production. Specifically, we assess whether this deliberative approach to co-production in the political and electoral arena improved participants’ perceptions of politics and government and made citizens more interested in and knowledgeable about policy issues. We also assess whether participants believed the Reclaim November Ohio process would help the candidates better understand citizens’ concerns and whether participants were satisfied with the event. The results suggest that co-production in the political and electoral arena can have positive effects on citizens’ agency, voice, and perceptions of politics and government. The results are mixed for both the perceived influence of the event and issue interest and knowledge. Nevertheless, participants were extremely satisfied with the event and its various components
Reason-Giving In Deliberative Forums
No full textOne aspect of deliberation is giving reasons to support a position. In this article, I explore how citizens engage in this activity by developing a framework that breaks down reason-giving into component parts, applying it to a set of eight National Issues Forums. Deliberators typically provided evidence (usually in the form of factual statements) to support their conclusions, but frequently did not tie them together with an infrastructure of logical and causal connections. Deliberators engaged in reason-giving by presenting evidence but did not explicate the underlying logic of their positions. This suggests that deliberative research should focus greater attention on understanding the conditions that encourage and facilitate the effective use of evidence to support conclusions, as well as how patterns of reason-giving influence deliberative quality
Review of Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice by Martha C. Nussbaum (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2013).
No full textReview of Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice by Martha C. Nussbaum (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2013)
Deliberation In and Through Higher Education
No full textThis article explores how deliberative democracy has the ability to change how colleges and universities function. Deliberation offers a powerful way for students, faculty, staff, and community partners to learn and practice modes of reasoning and deciding together in a variety of settings such as classrooms, other campus settings, and in communities. The article includes scholarly resources as well as examples of deliberation in various contexts. The article suggests that deliberation can replace, or at least complement, many of the more familiar models pervasive in our institutions
The Unfulfilled Promise of Online Deliberation
No full textSince online deliberation has not delivered on the expectations of more considered, democratic participation, the authors propose less focus on technological ‘fixes’ and more on re-conceptualizing its primary purpose to gathering resonance in an authentic public square. The ideas that emerge can then be deliberated in representative face-to-face public deliberations, with the coherent voice that results contributing to more inclusive, legitimate, and implementable democratic decision-making
On the Westerness of Deliberation Research
No full textThis essay suggests that the issue of culture is vital to advance deliberation theories and practices. After discussing whether deliberative democracy is a Western-specific or universal concept, it argues that current deliberation research is heavily immersed in Western cultural and methodological standards. An empirical portion also suggests that the positive effects of deliberation were greater for Western participants as opposed to non-Western participants. It argues that deliberation theories and research should be expanded so that they can include more cultural sensibilities
Where Are the Boundaries of Deliberation and Participation? A Transatlantic Debate
No full textThis article uses recent empirical results from a comparative Southern European study to show that the participatory practices commonly developed in this area are quite different from some of the common ideas related to deliberation in the English-speaking world. One of the main differences lies in the characteristics of the promoters, since most of them are top-down experiences organized by public authorities. The other main difference lies in the role played by equality concerns, which are quite marginal in most of these processes. In other aspects, like the role of participation professionals or the existence of important inequalities in the participation of different groups of citizens, the experiences developed in this area are not as different from what most of the comparative research has shown