3,078
edits
Changes
→Direct and Micro-analytic
’ preferences).
====Direct and Micro-analyticMeasurments====Those that measure deliberation directly examine the deliberative discussion to determine the extent to which the discussion corresponds to theoretical conceptions of deliberation. The most common direct measurement of deliberation in small groups is what we call discussion analysis, which includes a range of methods used to systematically evaluate the communication engaged in during a deliberative discussion (also called ''micro-measurments''). Another common method used for the direct study of deliberation is to ask participants for their own assessments of the deliberative process (also called ''macro-measurments''). This is typically done through post-deliberation surveys or interviews in which respondents reflect on their experience as a participant and answer questions about the deliberative quality of the discussion. The case study will be the final direct approach we review. Discussion.
'''DQI''': Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index (2003), based on Habermas theories<ref>[http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~burbank/steenbergen2003.pdf Steenbergen, Marco R., et al. "Measuring political deliberation: a discourse quality index." Comparative European Politics 1.1 (2003): 21-48].</ref>.
'''Stromer-Galley''': read<ref>[http://www.publicdeliberation.net/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&context=jpd Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), 12.]</ref>
====Indirect Measurments====
Studies using indirect measures assess deliberation based on either antecedents (for example, by measuring the extent to which conditions necessary for deliberation are met) or outcomes of the discussion (for example, by measuring post-deliberation changes in participants).
==Layers of Coordination==