Public Deliberation Consortium
Not a member yet
327 research outputs found
Sort by
Evaluating the Short- and Long-term Effects of a Modified Deliberative Poll on Idahoans\u27 Attitudes and Civic Engagement Related to Energy Options
No full textDeliberative polling engages citizens in a process of dialog, exposure to information, and interaction with experts, with the goal of developing more informed, stable attitudes and promoting civic engagement. There have been relatively few assessments of deliberative polling’s short-term effects and even fewer on its long-term effects. Moreover, most assessments examine aggregate changes in attitudes, although theory would suggest that changes might be idiosyncratic, especially in situations where balanced information is provided. This study examines the effects of a one-day modified deliberative poll regarding energy options for the state of Idaho. Using quantitative data from pre-tests, an immediate post-test (n=61), and a follow-up post-test eight months later (n=44), as well as qualitative data from interviews, this study explored preferences for five energy options and how participation affected civic engagement. We also report on participants’ assessments of the deliberative poll itself. Results show few significant changes in aggregate attitudes, with the exception that preference for nuclear power declined after the deliberative poll event. However, examining within-subjects data revealed that up to approximately 30% of participants exhibited substantive changes in their preferences, both immediately after the event and several months later. The extent of changes between the post-test and delayed post-test reinforces that attitudes are affected by individuals’ life circumstances, and suggests participation did not lead to highly enduring attitude changes. There was little evidence that participation led to increased civic engagement, either through communicating what was learned with others or through becoming more politically activ
Developing Deliberative Minds- Piaget, Vygotsky and the Deliberative Democratic Citizen
No full textThe Piagetian account of development has been extremely influential in the deliberative democracy literature. It has been either explicitly or implicitly assumed by the majority of theorists working in this area. It encourages deliberative democrats to make at least four key assumptions about the development of deliberative citizens and their capacities. Firstly, that development is an organic process. Secondly, that it is a universal process. Thirdly, that it is an evolutionary or stage-centric process. And finally, that it is a process which is best encouraged through facilitative teaching methods. In this paper I will suggest that this Piagetian influence on deliberative democracy is not as positive as it is often assumed to be. It encourages a laissez faire attitude to development and does not properly explain how we can create deliberative citizens with a wide range of deliberative capacities. However, there is an alternative account of development which I believe offers a much stronger basis for the development of deliberative citizens. It was originally proposed by Piaget\u27s great rival, the Soviet developmental psychologist Lev Vygotsky. He provides four corresponding ideas about development that could also be applied to the development of deliberative citizens. Firstly, development is primarily a cultural process. Secondly it is contextual process. Thirdly, it is a revolutionary or crisis ridden process. And finally, it is a process which is best encouraged through direct and mediatory educational techniques. In this paper I will show how this alternative developmental perspective can provide a much stronger foundation for the cultivation of deliberative minds
Deliberations on the Life Sciences: Pitfalls, Challenges and Solutions
No full textIn this article I sketch several versions of the deliberative approach and then discuss five problems which confront a deliberative ethicist of contemporary problems of the life sciences, in particular about food, nature and agriculture. I begin by discussing problems of unequal participation in deliberations and secondly analyze cognitive and normative uncertainties that abound in the life sciences like biotechnology. Thirdly, these sciences comprise different scripts (e.g. nutrigenomics: personalized or public health) that steer the type of outcome, like products and services. Dependent on the framing, the products and services look different. Fourthly, multi-level problems are addressed, in particular the relationship between local, regional, national, international opinion formation and decision making. Fifthly, I will turn the table and argue that some scientific and technological project can have a large and severe deliberative impact and others not. Discussing these challenges I will develop some tools, like mapping different arrangements of the interaction between genomics and societal developments, developing imaginary futures by aesthetic explorations and by scenarios, by different moral screenplays and dramatic rehearsals, deliberative leadership, and designing deliberation eliciting technologies
Participation: The Happiness Connection
No full textParticipation in decision-making has the potential to contribute to greater happiness. To explore this connection, we examine three areas: the family, the workplace and politics. In each of these areas, happiness research suggests that greater participation should increase happiness, most directly via the channels of personal relationships and helping others. There is some empirical research suggesting that participation contributes to happiness. It is useful to consider the connections between the three areas. In particular, examination of participation-happiness connections within families and workplaces can provide some insights for promoting a stronger connection at the level of politics
Deliberating Future Issues: Minipublics and Salmon Genomics
No full textIn this paper we are interested a class of issues that are especially difficult to address through public engagement processes. These are issues which should (or must) be addressed in the current period but have associated costs, benefits, and impacts that are concentrated in the future. These issues – which might be called ‘future issues’ – are difficult to manage democratically because any public opinions that might help guide policy decisions have not yet developed. At the same time, governments and administrative agencies are often compelled to act before the full implications of these issues are evident and before potentially affected publics are formed and aware of the implications or consequences of these developments. At best, governments and administrators can try to facilitate positive developments or prevent negative outcomes by anticipating potential concerns or conflicts associated with future issues and addressing these in the current period. We argue that small deliberative forums that combine random-selection, education and deliberation are a practical solution to this dilemma. These small forums – or minipublics – can be used to simulate discursive opinions on subjects that have not, or have not yet become topics of widespread public discourses. Our analysis is based on data from a minipublic on salmon genomics that was conducted in November 2008 by the Centre for Applied Ethics at the University of British Columbia. We argue that participating in deliberative events like this one can help citizens develop substantive opinions on technologically and temporally complex issues. We also argue that minipublics can be used to develop anticipatory maps of collectively sanctioned recommendations and discursively developed concerns or considerations. Minipublics on future issues can offer policy makers important insights into the likely parameters of public debates that have not – or have not yet – occurred
Five Assumptions Academics Make About Public Deliberation, And Why They Deserve Rethinking
No full textAcademic research on public dialogue and deliberation is abundant and sophisticated. This body of multi-disciplinary scholarship draws on the insights of political theory and case studies, such that much is known about the promise and practical nuances of designing engagement processes with authentically deliberative outcomes. The socio-historical and institutional contexts in which public deliberation is organized and practitioners make their living are less well-studied. This article uses a multi-method study of deliberation as a strategic action field (SAF) in order to reconsider common assumptions about deliberation practice. Based on practitioners\u27 shared experiences and everyday struggles, I challenge researchers to develop deeper analyses of 1) change and power, 2) reproduction of inequality, 3) stability and settlement, 4) markets and politics, and 5) crises and opportunities in the field. Given expanding demand for deliberative remedies and converging strategies and discourses across related SAFs, this new research agenda is a timely addition to both deliberation scholarship and comparative historical sociology
The Australian Experience of World Wide Views on Global Warming: The First Global Deliberation Process
No full textWorld Wide Views on Global Warming was the first ever global-scale citizen deliberation process, held on 25-26 September 2009 and involving approximately 4,000 citizens in 38 countries. WWViews sought to provide citizens with a voice in the 2009 UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen (COP15) by engaging them in a deliberative process about global political positions on climate change. The process produced clear, comparable results across all participating countries that were given to COP15 negotiators. The Danish Government agencies, the Danish Board of Technology and the Danish Cultural Institute, initiated the global process. Organisers in each participating country ran events using the same standardised process. The University of Technology Sydney, the organisers of the Australian WWViews event, paid special attention to several elements of the process to maximise participation and impact within the local context.
This paper outlines the standardised global process used for this deliberative event and describes and reflects upon the tailored approaches developed for Australia. It examines in detail the objectives, processes and outcomes of recruiting and supporting participants and recruiting, training and coordinating facilitators, communications and dissemination of results and specific features of the Australian event. It includes the organisers’ reflections on success factors, challenges and surprises, as well as feedback from facilitators and participants. This paper concludes with a number of critical questions arising from the Australian experience of World Wide Views on Global Warming that are pertinent for practitioners designing other deliberative forums and particularly anyone concerned about future prospects for global deliberative democracy
Beyond Engagement Exercises: Exploring the U.S. National Citizens\u27 Technology Forum from the Bottom-Up
No full textExercises intended to engage laypeople in deliberations about emerging scientific and technological issues have become very popular in recent decades. These exercises are typically organized by political or intellectual elites, and often assessed in a top-down fashion as well. This paper disrupts that pattern by using a mix of complementary qualitative approaches to explore the experiences of citizen participants in a large exercise on emerging technologies, the 2008 U.S. National Citizens Technology Forum (NCTF), which included both face-to-face and online deliberations. Research questions explore participants’ perspectives on 1) the quality of the deliberations, 2) the potential for the exercise to have impacts, and 3) the degree of empowerment they experienced. While most participants had positive experiences in the exercise, and did not feel that anyone dominated deliberations, at times tensions and conflicts simmered under the surface. Further, the majority of the participants were highly critical of what they felt were chaotic online interactions that failed to engage with some of their key questions. Though many mentioned gaining some personal efficacy, most categorized the exercise as a research project and therefore did not feel it would have many broader societal or political impacts. Finally, participants’ reflections on their experiences in the exercise revealed interesting insights that went beyond the focal research questions—such as their awareness of the top-down power dynamics in the exercise—and how they actively negotiated these dynamics in ways that shaped the quality of deliberation, their sense of empowerment, and assessments of the exercise\u27s potential impacts
Deliberation of Controversial Public School Curriculum: Developing Processes and Outcomes that Increase Legitimacy and Social Justice
No full textPublic schools in the United States are charged with facilitating public deliberation of controversial school curriculum. This often entails managing the negotiations between multiple stakeholders who have very different positions on the proper design and implementation of curriculum. To maintain legitimacy as caretakers of the public interest in a liberal democracy, public schools are asked to recognize all legitimate perspectives in such disputes. But what happens when a perspective is not considered legitimate or in the public interest by the dominant community? When disputes over curriculum ensue, the rights of individuals to have their perspectives included in the curriculum must be considered in tandem with the public school’s primary responsibility—to teach students to nurture a democracy. This essay synthesizes frameworks from deliberative democracy theorists to better understand the ways that the process and outcome of public school curriculum deliberation can increase in legitimacy and responsiveness to issues of social justice. To develop and illustrate this theoretical framework, I examine the case of a small group of activists who challenged a curriculum’s claim that the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was clearly a mistake. Activist wanted the curriculum to say that the internment was done out of military necessity. I conclude that Gutmann’s guidelines of non-discrimination and non-repression must be synthesized with Habermas’s guidelines for a proceduralist model of deliberation