3,078
edits
Changes
→Democratic assessment of collaborative planning processes
==Democratic assessment of collaborative planning processes==
===Creating of [[SON]]===
'''Habermas:''' The theoretical foundation of our measure of discourse quality is Habermas’(1981, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1995, 1996) discourse ethics is the principle of universalism, which holds that a norm is valid only if everyone who is potentially affected by the norm accepts its consequences, including any anticipated negative side effects. The acceptance of norms cannot be imposed in an authoritarian manner. Rather, individuals ought to consent to those norms, and this is done through a process of argumentation and persuasion. This process of discourse constitutes ‘communicative action:’ individuals give and criticize reasons for holding or rejecting particular validity claims, so that universally valid norms can be discovered through reason. (Taken from <ref>Steenbergen, Marco R., et al. "Measuring political deliberation: a discourse quality index." Comparative European Politics 1.1 (2003): 21-48.(p.25)</ref>)
===Ethics===
Dahl’s five criteria for evaluating democratic processes have been widely accepted, at least among students of democracy (Dahl, 1979, 1998; see Habermas<ref>Habermas, Jürgen. "Between Facts and Norms, Cambridge." Polity 213 (1996).</ref>, Saward<ref>Saward, Michael. "Making democratic connections: Political equality, deliberation and direct democracy." Acta Politica 36.4 (2001): 361-379.</ref>).The five criteria are<ref>Dahl A., R. (2000). On Democracy (1st ed., p. 224). New Haven: Yale University Press.</ref> (taken from<ref>Agger, Annika, and Karl Löfgren. "Democratic assessment of collaborative planning processes." Planning Theory 7.2 (2008): 145-164.</ref>):
#''Effective participation''