Public Deliberation Consortium
Not a member yet
327 research outputs found
Sort by
From Town-Halls to Wikis: Exploring Wikipedia\u27s Implications for Deliberative Democracy
No full textThis essay examines the implications Wikipedia holds for theories of deliberative democracy. It argues that while similar in some respects, the mode of interaction within Wikipedia represents a distinctive form of “collaborative editing” that departs from many of the qualities traditionally associated with face-to-face deliberation. This online mode of interaction overcomes many of the problems that distort face-to-face deliberations. By mitigating problems that arise in deliberative practice, such as “group polarization” and “hidden profiles,” the wiki model often realizes the epistemic and procedural aspirations of deliberative democracy. These virtues of the Wikipedia model should not, however, lead to the simple conclusion that it ought to replace traditional face-to-face deliberation. Instead, this essay argues that the collaborative editing process found within Wikipedia ought to be viewed as a promising supplement to traditional deliberation. These two modes of communication ought to be viewed in Madisonian terms – as distinctive forms of interaction that check and balance the vices of one another. When combined, the wiki model promotes the virtues of inclusion and accuracy at large scales, while the face-to-face model excels in conditions of localism and promotes the virtues of solidarity and social capital
Types of Deliberation
No full textAs research has increasingly addressed deliberative processes through theoretical analyses, empirical studies, and practical experiments, it has become apparent that deliberation is a phenomenon with many faces. Argument-based interaction may come about in different ways and have different functions. Many of these differences can be explained by the nature of the entry positions, i.e. the type of judgment participants express at the start of the deliberation process. Positions may be strong or weak, conscious or unconscious, free or constrained. I discuss the relationship between type of position and type of deliberation, hypothesizing what difference there may be in the development of the deliberative process and in its outcome, and look at the most frequent deviations from the ideal deliberative model. I discuss both cases of symmetrical deliberation, in which all participants express positions of the same type, and cases of asymmetrical deliberation, more frequent in the real world, in which interaction is among actors whose positions are of different types. The analysis suggests that specific settings should be adopted and specific strategies employed depending on the type of deliberation involved
Is Deliberation Neutral? Patterns of Attitude Change During The Deliberative Polls™
No full textThough deliberative theory has a bias toward rigorous argument and democratic social relations, it presumes that an ideal discursive process otherwise has a neutral stance with respect to particular ideologies and cultural values. This essay provides a preliminary test of that assumption by examining attitude change across a wide range of Deliberation Polls held across the globe. We analyzed 65 questionnaire statements on which Poll participants significantly changed their views on a wide variety of issues. By coding each of these survey items on various value dimensions, we were able to look for any obvious patterns of attitude change. Despite its small size and the exclusion of items showing no attitude change, this sample showed that Poll respondents tend to move toward more cosmopolitan, egalitarian, and collectivist value orientations. Further analysis showed the strongest value-laden shifts were on empirical statements, with public opinion on such questions shifting moderately toward cosmopolitan and collectivist beliefs. The conclusion considers the implications of these findings for deliberative theory, research, and practice
Editors\u27 Introduction: Special Issue on Higher Education
No full textThis issue of the Journal for Public Deliberation challenges colleges and universities to consider how their academic programs help strengthen American democracy. In this introduction, the editors summarize and connect the contributions in this special issue
Towards the Recognition and Integration of Action Research and Deliberative Democracy
No full textBecause of the shared underlying value systems of action research (AR) and deliberative democracy (DD), the former can be a powerful means for engaging the academy in the latter. AR and DD are both grounded in principles of inclusion, equity, the co-generation of knowledge, and action. In making the case for the integration of AR and DD, we describe their commonalities and place AR in the context of other forms of engaged scholarship. We review outreach scholarship, community-based research and other forms of participatory research, examining each in terms of their alignment with deliberative democratic principles and their potential for furthering deliberative democracy generally. Engaging the academy in research on and for deliberative democracy requires the full recognition of AR and other forms of engaged scholarship. However, Ernest Boyer’s call for the academy to recognize the scholarship of engagement as scholarship worthy of tenure and promotion has been heeded unevenly across and within higher education institutions. Yet, embedding action research firmly in the academy is critical to engaging faculty in research that not only furthers our understanding of deliberative democracy, but engages higher education in the work of pushing democracy forward
Deliberative Democracy in Teacher Education
No full textThis paper aims to contribute to the valuable conversation about the role of deliberative democracy in teacher education. I consider both using pedagogy that engages deliberative democracy in process, thereby enhancing teaching, and advancing deliberative democracy as a worthy goal in teacher education. I begin by looking at recent changes in society that have reshaped student goals, educational accountability, and the priority of democracy within higher education. I highlight these changes to issue a call for a thoroughgoing commitment to deliberative democracy both in theory and in practice, as a means and an end. I expand on the definition of deliberative democracy and the skills necessary to fulfilling it as they relate to the goals of teacher education. I close by turning to exemplary programs in teacher education and showcasing some smaller steps toward incorporating democratic practices and assignments
Teaching Democracy in Public Administration: Trends and Future Prospects
No full textOver the last century, the skills, ideas, and values upheld within the field of public administration (PA) have undergone several major shifts. We seem to be in the midst of another such transition, as PA schools react to new perspectives about the state of democracy and citizenship. Most of these arguments focus on the more participatory aspects of democracy, and emphasize the need for governments to work more directly and interactively with citizens. “Democratic governance” is one term used to describe this set of ideas. This article explores the relationship between PA and democratic governance through interviews with professors and other observers of the discipline. The picture that emerges is that of a field in flux, spurred both by theoretical claims and by the practical needs of administrators, being pushed from a narrow focus on management to a broader conception of governing
The Public as Policy Expert: Deliberative Democracy in the Context of Finnish Health Care Reforms and Policies
No full textThe provision of health care in contemporary developed societies has become a so-called “wicked problem.” Tackling the many important challenges is a daunting task—so much so, in fact, that it may prove to be a “mission impossible.” This reality has significant implications for the crafting of health care reforms and policies. Moreover, and more fundamentally, there exists no widely accepted standard by which to generate, evaluate, and prioritize reform and policy proposals. In view of these difficulties, turning to the public for guidance may be the wisest course of action. Specifically, a democratic mechanism is needed by which the public can consider a range of policy directions and can deliberate the consequences and trade-offs in view of people’s values and priorities. In short, some form of deliberative democratic exercise is called for. The chief aim of the present article is to highlight the possibilities for bringing the principles and methods of deliberative democracy to bear on health care in Finland, and in particular on developing proposals for reform and policy. The essay consists of four parts. First, I offer a theoretical perspective on deliberative democracy and its potential for dealing with “wicked problems.” Second, I situate the theory in the context of the crisis of the Finnish welfare state. In part three, I consider the relative dearth of existing forms of deliberative democracy in Finland, and present an upcoming Finnish experiment on public deliberation. Finally, in part four, I examine the views of two groups: representatives of Finnish patient and disability NGOs, and a group of Finnish citizens. I ask whether they see the need for or value in increased citizen involvement in the planning of health care reforms and policies
Pyramidal Democracy
No full textI propose a decentralized, multilayered representative democracy, where citizens participate in deliberative policy formation after self-organizing into a pyramidal hierarchy of small groups. Each group elects a delegate, who expresses the deliberative consensus of that group at the next tier of the pyramid. The pyramid thus acts as a communications network which efficiently aggregates useful information and policy ideas. It is also a powerful meritocratic device, which channels legislative responsibility towards the most committed and competent citizens. This yields a practical implementation of deliberative democracy in a large polity