Deliberative Democracy
Theories of Knowledge, Psychology, Deliberation and Government
By Tal Yaron
 This site was written by a non-English speaking writer. Any help in improving the readbility will be much appreciated.Tal Yaron 02:19, 30 December 2012 (IST) |
 This page is a stub. It is not ready for publication and is used to aggregate information about a subject. You can add further reading and add information to the page. If you want to prepare this page for publication please consults with the creator of this page. |
Contents
Goals of this Wiki
This wiki is designed to be the base for a coherent set of theories for understanding and developing deliberative Democracy practices. It will be home for different aspects of deliberative society, ranging from epistemology, individual psychology, education, learning, individual growth, and to the understanding of groups dynamics, deliberation, decision making, Government, Peace-War and international relationships.
It will be based on scientific research, evidential exprience, epistemology and some original hypothesis.
Why do we need deliberation?
Deliberation may be the most important field of research humankind will engage in the 21th century. Deliberation is so important, because every group of people as small as a group composed of two people, like a couple, to groups as large as hounderds of milions, like states, needs to find solutions that will help their members prosper. To prosper, all groups have to arrive at the best solutions available in their current situation. Deliberation is a field of research that engages the ways people can work together, with corroborated knoweldge to pursuit the best solutions. If we will understand how to promote together the best solution through agreements, we will find ways to bring prosperity to wider population, and we may also bring more peace among nations.
Values of Deliberation
Equal Participation
Bias of Deliberation
in many cases of online discussions there is a tedency of domination by a minority of people which is bias for deliberation[1][2][3][4][5].
Level of Participation
See Robert Dahal....
Better informed participents
There are situations in which some citizens are simply better informed that justify an extended participation.
Decision Makers
In the case where politicians participate it is normal that the discussion tends to revolve around them, since it is a rare opportunity for participants at the forum to discuss directly with their representatives. The survey realized by Jankowsky and van Selm on the participants indicate that “Although debate appeared to be dominated by the few, participants appreciated the debate…”[6].
Falsification
Rawls' Justice
Mill's Public Sphare Without private Sphare
ROI
Private ROI
See Robert Dahal...
Government Following
following decisions
Janssen and Kien defined Deliberation that has impacto on the goverment as "Major" and a disccusion that do no followed by action by the govenment as "minor"[7]. For the forum to become major, Janssen and Kien suggest three mechanisms:
- visibility of the public space and therefore its potential political influence (i.e. the number of persons reading the messages). For example, one can think at the forum hosted by major newspapers such as the New York Times or Le Monde; ii)
- Aim: There are for instance an increasing number of web-based discussion spaces - the e-consultation procedures - aiming at providing feedback on special issues; iii)
- status and power: it can result from the status and the power of the people participating actively or even just passively (just reading) in the online debates. There are, for example, online discussion spaces where political representatives or high level civil servants participate. It is usually not a spontaneous participation, but a participation resulting from an explicit invitation of the organizers.
Massages in major deliberation, “citizenspace”, that was designed to enable citizens to enter into an interactive relationship with Government, had longer average massages then minor deliberation, e-consultation experience organized by the Hansard society on the Stem research. Coleman found that the major forum had an average of 345 words per massage, while the minor forum had average of 79 words per massage[8]. Janssen and Kies (2000), suggest that major spaces tend to be more respectful and constructive[9].
Gravitating toward the power of decision makers
In online discussion spaces where politicians are present, the discussion tends to revolve around them and much less around individual citizens[10]. In other words, the presence of politicians would have an impact on the flow of communication which could distract from the equilibrium and the fairness of the debate, and gravitate toward the power of decision makers.
In contexts where participants think that their voices can have an impact on decisions they are ready and willing to spend more time to elaborate and to justify their opinions.
learning and changing decisions
Bulding Blocks of Deliberation
SON
what is a SON
Why do We Need Social Knowledge in Deliberation
What is Social Knowledge
Methods for creating social knowledge.Moving from MONs to SON.
Methods for creating social knowledge in deliberation.
Falsification
Experts Knowledge
Integration of Experts Knowledge with Laymen Knowledge
Options
WHAT IS AN option? Methods for creating options
Evaluating
Synthesizing
The cycle of Creating SON, Creating Options, Evaluating and Synthsizing
Selecting
Doing
Learning From Experience
Effects in Deliberation
Settings
Topic
Hot vs. Cool
Hot topic will be one in which participents will have high stakes and the need for control will be high.
Culture
How culture may effect deliberation?
Participation
Communication
Asynchronous vs. Real-time
It is fundamental to distinguish the real-time discussion spaces (chat-rooms) from the asynchronous online discussion spaces that do not have time constraints (email list; newsgroups; Bulletin boards; forums). It is generally recognized that the former are spaces that attract 'small talk' and jokes, while the latter constitute a more favourable place for the appearance of some form of rational-critical form of debate. We suspect the different types of asynchronous forums to also have an impact on the deliberativeness of the forum, however we are aware of no specific empirical research that could confirm this belief[11].
Identification
Some suggests that un-identification will make forum more open and therefore more reliable[12], while other think it will make the forums unreliable[13]
Restricted Participation
Some spaces are restricted, while others are open to every body. The participation can influance the outcome of the deliberation. For instance, open deliberation without restrictions can drive a way experts. It may be better to assambel groups acording to a commun interest and level of knowledg. On the other hand, limiting access can cause groupthink.
Moderation
Modration style may influance the forums in many ways.
Agenda setting
The agenda setting of the debate can be decentralized (defined by participants), centralized (defined by organisers) or partly centralized (defined by both)[14].
Topic-centerd vs People-centerd
Debates can also be organized around topics (eg. wikipedia) or around one or several political stakeholders(eg. blogs)[15]
Psychology
Self-Control
From FFFF to PFC
Flaming
Defined by Alonzo and Aiken (2004: 205) as ‘hostile intentions characterized by words of profanity, obscenity, and insults that inflict harm to a person or an organization resulting from uninhibited behavior’[16]. Flaming as an object of academic inquiry traces its origins to the pre-world wide web bulletin-board systems of the 1980s[17].
Respect
Janssen and Kies (2000), suggest that major spaces tend to be more respectful and constructive[18].
Exploration and Exploitation Moods
Motivation and Inhibition in Deliberation
Limited resources
When people strugle to gain access to limited resouces, naturly, their motivation will grow. And also, as the amount of limited resources is grrater, the motivation will become greater. This is the reason, Churchill suggested that the number of seats in parliament will be smaller then the number of PMs. Jank and Kiel found out that people tend to write longer massages and gravitate toward decision makers, when politicians are participating an online discussion[19].
On the other hand, if there is not enough space, the fight for the limited resources may become a fight and skirmishes may arise, making the deliberation void.
ROI
See Robert Dahal
Maslow's Pyramid of needs
For every need in Maslow's pyramid of needs, there is an influance in motivation to deliberate.
In the physiological needs, people will use deliberation to direct more basic resources toward themselves (like money).
In Safety needs, people will use deliberation to understand complex phenoemnon and to make the public more orderd and safe. Here curiosity and terror managment will play signficant role.
In love and honor needs, people will try to achieve commun undestanding, respect and friendship.
In Honor needs, people will try to gain more honor from others, by beeing more informed or more power over decision making.
In Self-Fulfilment, people will use their special skills in knowledge contribute to the group.
Sociology
Positive Politics
Homogeneity and Heterogeneity
Learning
How do We Build the Bulding Blocks?
SON
How do we learn
The importance of story telling and curiosity for learning.
How do we Integrate Different levels and areas of Knowledge?
Experts-Laymen problem. Integrating Differnet areas of knowledge
How do we Falisify?
Options
We can use priming, or private investigation.
Evaluaiting
Synthesizing
Cycling
Selecting
Processes of Deliberation
NIF
NIF is an abbreviation for National Issues Forum
OST
dcCDM
- ↑ Beierle, T. C. (2002). Democracy Online: An Evaluation of the National Dialogue on Public Involvement in EPA decision. RFF Report, Washington.
- ↑ Davis R. (1999). The Web of Politics. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Dumoulin,
- ↑ Jankowski, N. & Van Selm M. (2000) The promise and Practice of Public Debate in Cyberspace. K. Hacker and J.A.G.M. Van Dijk, Eds. Digital Democracy: Issues of theory and practice. London: Sage.
- ↑ Jankowski, N. W. and R. van Os (2002). Internet-based Political Discourse: A Case Study of Electronic Democracy in the City of Hoogeveen. Euricom Colloquium: Electronic Networks & Democracy. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: 17.
- ↑ Jensen, J. L. (2003). Public Spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or Government- sponsored - A Comparison. Scandinavian Political Studies. 26: 349-374. Kies
- ↑ Jankowski, N. & Van Selm M. (2000) The promise and Practice of Public Debate in Cyberspace. K. Hacker and J.A.G.M. Van Dijk, Eds. Digital Democracy: Issues of theory and practice. London: Sage.
- ↑ Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.(p.6)
- ↑ Coleman, S., Hall, N., & Howell, M. (2002). Hearing voices: the experience of online public consultations and discussions in UK governance. Hansard Society.
- ↑ Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.
- ↑ Jankowski, N. & Van Selm M. (2000) The promise and Practice of Public Debate in Cyberspace. K. Hacker and J.A.G.M. Van Dijk, Eds. Digital Democracy: Issues of theory and practice. London: Sage.
- ↑ Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2005). Online forums and deliberative democracy. Acta Pol{í}tica, 40(3), 317–335.(p.4)
- ↑ Dutton, W. H. (1996). Networks rules of order: regulating speech in public electronic fora. Media, Culture & Society. 18: 269-290.
- ↑ Maldonado T. (1997) Critica della ragione informatica. Milano, Feltrinelli.Monnoyer-Smith,
- ↑ Janssen, B. D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.(p.5)
- ↑ Janssen, B. D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.(p.5)
- ↑ Alonzo M, Aiken M (2004) Flaming in electronic communication. Decision Support Systems 36(3): 205–13 (p.208).
- ↑ Lea M, O’Shea T, Fung P, and Spears R (1992) ‘Flaming’ in computer-mediated communication: Observations, explanations, implications. In: Lea M (ed.) Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication. New York: Harvester-Wheatsheaf, 89–112.
- ↑ Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.
- ↑ Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.