3,078
edits
Changes
→Goals of this Framework
|}
{{stub|[[User:WinSysop|Tal Yaron]] 10:26, 9 July 2014 (IDT)}}
==Why do we need a Framework for Deliberation==
The theory of deliberation has so far defied a strong connection with empirical research. There are two main reasons for this: the lack of conceptual clarity specifying which types of discussions classify as the deliberative type, and the confusion between
the causes and the consequences of deliberation.
Much of the literature on deliberation derives from disagreements over the necessary and sufficient conditions that are required for deliberation to take place<ref>Thompson, D.F. (2008). Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political
Science, Annual Review of Political Science 11: 497–520.</ref>. Without these conditions, deliberation is a moving target: it is difficult to match with any particular instance of public discussion, and it can always be argued that some
crucial element is missing that disqualifies the entire empirical approach. The problem with this lack of conceptual clarity is not only that it goes against the basic principle of scientific refutability, hampering the development of the theory, but also that it blurs the boundaries between the definition of deliberation and its evaluation<ref>Mutz, D.C. (2008). Is Deliberative Democracy a Falsifiable Theory? Annual Review of Political Science 11: 521–538.</ref>. Empirical approaches to political deliberation can help develop the theory by, first, turning the normative assumptions into testable hypotheses and, second, progressively identifying a set of necessary conditions required todistinguish deliberation from other types of discussions<ref>Taken from Gonzalez-Bailon, S., Kaltenbrunner, A., & Banchs, R. E. (2010). The structure of political discussion networks: a model for the analysis of online deliberation. Journal of Information Technology, 25(2), 230–243.</ref>.
==Goals of this Framework==