View source for Old main page

<p style="font-size: 200%;  line-height: 1.3">''Deliberative Democracy''</p>
<p style="font-size: 125%;  line-height: 1.3">Theories of Knowledge, Psychology, Deliberation and Government</p>


<br><br>
The goal of this site is to gather infrmation about deliberation and develope general theory about deliberation and deliberative democracy.

==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.

[[why do we need deliberative democracy]]

==Why do we need a Framework for Deliberation==
The theory of deliberation has so far defied a strong connection with empirical research. One of the reason for that is the complexty of this field. The Public Deliberation research field is not an easy field for research. It includes the fields of political science, social interactions, individual psychology, interpersonal communication, the processing of knowledge and much more.  In each of it's subfields there are many areas of intradisciplnary and interdisciplinary questions, each making the field more complex. This makes the research of deliberation highly complex. In order to make deliberation empirical, falsifiable theories of deliberation must be produced. Such theories which describes measurable elements and interactions of between elemnts,were produced in the last decade by several groups: steenberger et al 2003<ref>Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: a discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21–48.</ref>, stormer-Galley 2005<ref>Stromer-Galley, J., & Martinson, A. (2005). Conceptualizing and measuring coherence in online chat. In Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association.</ref>, bachtiger et al 2009<ref>Bachtiger, A., Shikano, S., Pedrini, S., & Ryser, M. (2009). Measuring deliberation 2.0: standards, discourse types, and sequenzialization. In ECPR General Conference, Potsdam (pp. 5–12).</ref> and black and Gastil 2008<ref>Gastil, J., Black, L., & Moscovitz, K. (2008). Ideology, attitude change, and deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Political Communication, 25(1), 23–46.</ref>, yet these theories only answers partly to the phenomena we find in real world deliberation. Many aspects like the inadequaty of rationality, communication styles, storytelling, social interaction, communication methods, type of medium used and much more are not described by these theoris. 

The current framework does not try to give a single description of deliberation, but rather aims at describing the building blocks of deliberation, and the ways to measure these building blocks. We will examine four areas that to our understanding construct the major elements of deliberation: knowledge, psychology, sociology and the structures and procedures which produce public decision making by deliberation. We then ask about the quality and democratic values of the decisions. We then examines several methods of deliberation used by practioners, and tries to describe the elements and the interactions the practitioners used. Based on these understanding, we hope to make measurements of deliberation more clear and to improve old practices and construct new advanced deliberation settings.


__TOC__
==Criticism of Deliberation==
[[criticism of deliberation]]

==Values of Deliberation==
see also [[theories of deliberation]].
===Equal Participation===
Deliberative theory underlies the notion of ‘strong democracy’ whereby representative institutions should be supplanted by more participatory ones in order to realise the principle of self-government<ref>Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref><ref>Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberative Democracy and Democratic Legitimacy, in A. Hamlin and P. Pettit (eds.) The Good Polity, Oxford: Blackwell,pp. 17–34.</ref><ref>Fishkin, J.S. (1991). Democracy and Deliberation, Yale: Yale University Press.</ref><ref>Barber, B.R. (1998). Three Scenarios for the Future of Technology and Strong Democracy, Political Science Quarterly 113(4): 573–590.</ref>.

Political equality is equal consideration of everyone's preferences, where everyone refers to some relevant population or demos, and equal consideration means a process of equal counting so that everyone has the same voting power (and anonymous)<ref>[http://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS234/articles/fishkin.pdf Fishkin, J. S., & Luskin, R. C. (2005). Experimenting with a democratic ideal: Deliberative polling and public opinion. Acta Politica, 40(3), 284–298.(page 2)]</ref>
====Equal influance on Deliberation====
in many cases of online discussions there is a tedency of domination by a minority of people which is bias for deliberation<ref>Beierle, T. C. (2002). Democracy Online: An Evaluation of the National Dialogue on Public Involvement in EPA decision. RFF Report, Washington.</ref><ref>Davis R. (1999). The Web of Politics. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Dumoulin,</ref><ref>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.</ref><ref>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.</ref><ref>Jensen, J. L. (2003). Public Spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or Government- sponsored - A Comparison. Scandinavian Political Studies. 26: 349-374.
Kies</ref>.

=====Levels 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…”<ref>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.</ref>.

===Falsification===
[[falsification]]

===Ethic===
====Procedural Justice====
Rawls' Justice

====Public Sphare Without private Sphare====
Mill's: The public sphare should leave the private sphare out of the public discussion as much as it can (Mill).

===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"<ref>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)</ref>. 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<ref>Coleman, S., Hall, N., & Howell, M. (2002). Hearing voices: the experience of online public consultations and discussions in UK governance. Hansard Society.</ref>. Janssen and Kies (2000), suggest that major spaces tend to be more respectful and constructive<ref>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.</ref>.

====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<ref>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.</ref>. 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====
====Basic Democratic settings====
Due to the need for the government to follow public decisions and also to make governmental knowledge transparent, an efficient government should be in place before deliberation can start. When government is corrupt and unable to follow easly public decision due to organization inefficiency, the public will will not be able to manifest itself on his birucracy. Officials will try to hold information from the public and organization inefficiency will cause projects decided by the people to disappear in the corridors of bureaucracy.

To achieve deliberative democracy, the people should  pressure the government to be more efficient and more transparent.

==Elements of Deliberation==

Experts on dialogue processes argue that deliberative forums should have at least two phases: one characterized by “divergence,” in which opinions,perspectives, and options proliferate; and a second phase characterized by “convergence,” in which participants come to conclusions, shared insights, and next steps<ref>[http://www.pioneersofchange.net Pioneers of Change Associates. (2006). Mapping dialogue. Johannesburg, South Africa:Pioneers of change].</ref><ref>[http://knowledgecenter.completionbydesign.org/sites/default/files/198 Kaner 2007.pdf Kaner, S., Lind, L., Toldi, C., Fisk, S., & Berger, D. (2007). Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making (2nd ed., p. 363). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.]</ref><ref>McCoy, M.L., & P.L. Scully. (2002). Deliberative dialogue to expand civic engagement: What kind of talk does democracy need?” National Civic Review,92,117–35</ref>. The first phase is important not only for giving participants a better sense of the range of problems and possible solutions but also for generating the creativity that leads to innovative answers and the sociability that gives people a stake in making the process work. But it the second phase is equally important and is in some ways more difficult, more likely to provoke feelings of frustration and antagonism among participants. 

For another frame of analyzing the bulding blocks of deliberation see [[Gastil and Black framework|Gastil and Black 2008]]<ref>[http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol4/iss1/art3 Gastil, J., & Black, L. W. (2008). Public deliberation as the organizing principle in political communication research. Journal of Public Deliberation, 4.]</ref>. They present five bulding blocks:
#Creating an information base (SON).
#Prioritizing key values at stake (pre-Evaluation)
#Identifing wide range of possible solutions (Options)
#Weighing the solutions (Evaluation)
#Making the best decision possible (selecting)

They base their model of group decision making resesrch<ref>Hirokawa, R. Y., & Salazar, A. J. (1999). Task-group communication and decisionmaking performance. In L. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole, (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 167-191). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.</ref><ref>Hollingshead, A. N., Wittenbaum, G. M., Paulus, P. B., Hirowaka, R. Y., Ancona,
D. G., Peterson, R. S., . . . Yoon, K. (2005). A look at groups from the functional perspective. In M. S. Poole & A. B Hollingshead (Eds.), Theories of small groups: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 21-62). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.</ref>.

In my hypothesis I add the ''synthesis'', ''cycle'', ''doing'', ''learning from doing'', which help create more delicate and group-wise decisions, and learn from exprience. 

===The Question===
How to fulfil the changing needs of the people, is the beginning of the serach for solutions. The search can go through deliberation.
===Social Objects Network===
[[SON]]

====Why do We Need Social Knowledge in Deliberation====

Common Ground is defined as a prerequisite for mutual understanding in communication processes and it consists of shared information, mutual knowledge, mutual beliefs, and mutual assumptions<ref>Clark, H.H. and Carlson, T.B. (1982), “Hearers and speech acts”, Language, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 332-73</ref>. Building Common Ground is crucial for effective communication and collaborative work since it helps people converse and understand each other.

====What is Social Knowledge====
[[epistemology]], [[SON]]

Methods for creating social knowledge.Moving from [[MON]]s to [[SON]].

Methods for creating social knowledge in deliberation.

====Falsification====
[[falsifiability]]

====Levels of Knowledge====
=====Experts and Laymen=====

=====Refinement=====
In emotional neutral deliberation, people added links to online discussion to contribute to an accurate picture of the choices<ref>Polletta, F., Chen, P. C. B., & Anderson, C. (2008). Is information good for deliberation? Link-posting in an online forum. Journal of Public Deliberation, 5(1), 2.</ref>.

=====Experts Knowledge=====

=====Integration of Experts Knowledge with Laymen Knowledge=====

===Options===

WHAT IS AN [[option]]?

Methods for creating options

In emotional neutral online deliberation people used links to other sites to create more options<ref>Polletta, F., Chen, P. C. B., & Anderson, C. (2008). Is information good for deliberation? Link-posting in an online forum. Journal of Public Deliberation, 5(1), 2.</ref>.

===Evaluating===
[[consequence]]

[[value]]

===Synthesizing===
[[synthesizing]]

===The cycle of Creating SON, Creating Options, Evaluating and Synthsizing===
The cycle should enahnce the ability of the group to solve problem wisely. See [[Wisdom of the Multitude]].

===Selecting===
===Doing===

===Learning From Experience===

==Psychology==
===Learning===
[[learning]]
====Exploration and Exploitation Moods====

===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’<ref>Alonzo  M, Aiken  M  (2004)  Flaming  in  electronic  communication. Decision  Support  Systems 36(3): 205–13 (p.208).</ref>. Flaming as an object of academic inquiry traces its origins to the pre-world wide web bulletin-board systems of the 1980s<ref>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.</ref>.

===Respect===
Janssen and Kies (2000), suggest that major spaces (government forums) tend to be more respectful and constructive<ref>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.</ref>.
===The Stupid-Evil Reaction===
Sometimes when there is a deep misunderstanding between participants, a mistrust my result. many times, the parties will evaluate the other as either stupid or evil.

===Motivation and Inhibition in  Deliberation===
Full article - [[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<ref>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.</ref>. 

On the other hand, if there is not enough space, the fight for the limited resources may become a [[FFFF|fight]] and skirmishes may arise, making the deliberation void.

====ROI====
See Robert Dahal

====Maslow's Pyramid of needs====
For every need in [[Maslow|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 [[TMT|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.

====The Ego====
The Ego in deliberation, is the need to control. When one have strong desires to control, without self-control or the understanding that in order to conrol, you first have to listen and [[synthesis]] other views, she will avoid listtening to others, by thinking of them as bad or as stupid.

In this respect, when one is in competition with others for control, he will try to show all their mistakes, and will strength her ideas. This may be the cause of the failuer of Eli Zeria, the Chif intelegence branch in the IDF to see the comming war with Egypt in October 1973<ref>Zvi Zamir, In open eyes, 2011, Zmora-Bitan ("בעיניים פקוחות: ראש המוסד מתריע: האם ישראל מקשיבה?", בהוצאת כנרת זמורה-ביתן דביר.)</ref>.

===Trust===
Mebers in online groups has to acive trust<ref>Kuo, F., & Yu, C. (2009). An Exploratory Study of Trust Dynamics in Work-Oriented Virtual Teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 823–854.</ref><ref>Rico, R., Alcover, C.-M., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., & Gil, F. (2009). The joint relationships of communication behaviors and task interdependence on trust building and change in virtual project teams. Social Science Information, 48(2), 229–255.</ref>. The medium will change the trust level, when high social-information will elevate the trust levels<ref>Bicchieri, C., & Lev-On, A. (2007). Computer-mediated communication and cooperation in social dilemmas: an experimental analysis. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 6(2), 139–168.</ref>

==Group Interactions==

===Spread of Information===
[[Gastil and Black framework]] gives four aspects of socilogy of deliberation:
#All participants should have equal and adequate speaking opportunities.
#All participants should attempt to comprehend one another’s views.
#All participants should make efforts to fully consider each other’s input.
#All participants should demonstrate respect for each other.

===Social Capital===
Research shows that virtuals teams need to establish relational variables early in their formation in FtF meetings<ref>Poole, M. S., & Zhang, H. (2005). Virtual teams. The Handbook of Group Research and Practice, 363–385.</ref>

===Culture===
Teams need to bulid bridges above diffrence in culture<ref>Olaniran, B. (2004). Computer-mediated communication in cross-cultural virtual teams. International & Intercultural Communication Annual, 27, 142-166.</ref><ref>Hardin, A. M., Fuller, M. A., & Davison, R. M. (2007). I know I can, but can we? Culture and efficacy beliefs in global virtual teams. Small Group Research, 38(1), 130–155.</ref><ref>Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(4), 0.</ref><ref>Rutkowski, A.-F., Saunders, C., Vogel, D., & Van Genuchten, M. (2007). �Is it already 4 am in your time zone?� Focus immersion and temporal dissociation in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 38(1), 98–129.</ref>

===Managing Conflicts===
group need to manage conflicts<ref>Poole, M. S., & Zhang, H. (2005). Virtual teams. The Handbook of Group Research and Practice, 363–385.</ref>

===Homogeneity and Heterogeneity===

====Homophily====
[[homophily]] 

====Groups Conflict====

[[group polarization]]

Twitter and facebook are knowen to make debates more [[homophily|homophilies]]<ref>Himelboim, I., McCreery, S., & Smith, M. (2013). Birds of a Feather Tweet Together: Integrating Network and Content Analyses to Examine Cross-Ideology Exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(2), 40–60.</ref>. This a represntation of debate about the israeli(blue)-Palestinian (green) conflict in Gaza in 2014. 
[[File:Gaza-Israel-Palestin-2014.png|400px|right|thumb|Produced by [http://giladlotan.com/ Gilad Lotan] - [http://www.vox.com/2014/8/7/5971759/chart-israel-palestine-polarized-twitter?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=voxdotcom&utm_content=thursday source: Vox] ]]
====Groupthink====

[[groupthink]]

Social psychological research on group decisionmaking has shown that those with minority opinions are often pressured to agree with the majority opinion, no matter how illinformed<ref>Turner, J. C. (1991). Social Influence. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.</ref>; that high-status participants tend to be perceived as more accurate in their judgments even when they are not<ref>Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983).Inside the Jury. Cambridge: MA:Harvard University Press.</ref>; and that people tend to credit information they already know rather thaninformation they do not, even when indications are that the latter may be more accurate<ref>Larson, J. R., Foster
-
Fishman, P. G., & Franz, T. M. (1998). Leadership style and the discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,24, 482-95.</ref><ref>Mendelberg, T. (2002). The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence.
Political Decisionmaking, Deliberation and Participation, 6, 151-193. (Overview)</ref>

==Medium==
[[CMC]]

==Settings that Effects Deliberation==
===Settings===
====Online Forum settings====
Online political and discussion spaces design choices can powerfully influence the nature of its users’ engagement<ref>Coleman S, Gøtze J (2001) Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation.London: Hansard Society.</ref><ref>Sack W (2005) Discourse architecture and very large-scale conversation. In: Latham R, Sassen S (eds) Digital Formations: IT and New Architectures in the Global Realm. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 242–82.</ref><ref>Suler J (2004) The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior7(3): 321–6.</ref><ref>Wright  S,  Street  J  (2007)  Democracy,  deliberation  and  design:  The  case  of  online  discussion forums. New Media & Society 9(5): 849–69.</ref><ref>Liang, H. (2014). The Organizational Principles of Online Political Discussion: A Relational Event Stream Model for Analysis of Web Forum Deliberation. Human Communication Research.</ref>.

A better deliberation may be gained by Endorsing asynchronicity in online text-based discussions,Coleman and Gøtze<ref>Coleman S, Gøtze J (2001) Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation.London: Hansard Society. (p.17)</ref>, argue that ‘the best deliberative results are often achieved when messages are stored or archived and responded to after readers have had time to contemplate them’. Contrariwise, Fishkin et al.<ref>Fishkin JS, Iyengar S, and Luskin R (2005) Deliberative public opinion in presidential primaries:  evidence from the online deliberative poll. Paper presented at the Voice and Citizenship conference, Seattle, WA, 22–24 April.(p.8)</ref> contend that asynchronous forums tend to be relatively low in ‘affective bonding and mutual understanding’. Wright and Street (2007) associate several technical affordances of online forums, including prior review moderation and threaded messages, with increased deliberation.

=====Anonymity=====
Suler identifies anonymity and invisibility as key design features in the production of the ‘online disinhibition effect’, which is simply a tendency to speak and act with less restraint online than one would offline<ref>Suler J (2004) The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior7(3): 321–6.</ref>.

====Topic====
Hot vs. Cool

Hot topic will be one in which participents will have high stakes and the need for control will be high.

===Participation===
===Communication===

====Ease of communication====

[[File:Affordnce in communication media - Clarck and brennan -1991.gif|600px|center|thumb|Taken from Iandoli et al 2012<ref>Iandoli, L., Quinto, I., De Liddo, A., & Shum, S. B. (2012). A debate dashboard to enhance online knowledge sharing. VINE, 42(1), 67–93.</ref>]]

====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<ref>Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2005). Online forums and deliberative democracy. Acta Pol{í}tica, 40(3), 317–335.(p.4)</ref>.

====Identification====
Some suggests that un-identification will make forum more open and therefore more reliable<ref>Dutton, W. H. (1996). Networks rules of order: regulating speech in public electronic fora. Media, Culture & Society. 18: 269-290.</ref>, while other think it will make the forums unreliable<ref>Maldonado T. (1997) Critica della ragione informatica. Milano, Feltrinelli.Monnoyer-Smith,</ref>

====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)<ref>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)</ref>.

====Topic-centerd vs People-centerd====
Debates can also be organized around topics (eg. wikipedia) or around one or several political stakeholders(eg. blogs)<ref>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)</ref>

==Measuring Deliberation==
===Measruring Discussion===
[[measuring deliberation]]
===Measuring Decisions===

See Woolley et al 2010<ref>Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science (New York, N.Y.), 330(6004), 686–8. doi:10.1126/science.1193147</ref>.

==How do We Build the Bulding Blocks?==
In what order and how we should build the sequence of deliberation and the effects of discussion, such as being able to filter and choose the most legitimate option<ref>Landa, D. and Meirowitz, A. (2009). Game Theory, Information, and Deliberative Democracy, American Journal of Political Science 53(2): 427–444.</ref>

===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===

==Methods of Deliberation==
===Tribals Methods===
====Minangkabau Deliberation====
[[Minangkabau Deliberation]]
====Enciant Jewish Post-Bibilcal Deliberation====
[[Sanhedrin]]
====Tribes in South Africa====
[[Tribes in South Africa]]

===Modern Methods===
====The Swiss Methods of Deliberation====
===Experimental Methods===
====NIF====
[[NIF]] is an abbreviation for [[National Issues Forum]]

====OST====
Open Space Technology

====dcCDM====
Diverging Converging Collective Decision Making

====NCTF====
NCTF stand for ''"National Citizens’ Technology Forum"'' it is a kind of consensus forum derived from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_conferences consensus conference model] which was orignated from Denemark, in the United States. For review see this article<ref>[http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=jen_schneider&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.co.il%2Fscholar_url%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fworks.bepress.com%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1009%2526context%253Djen_schneider%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm3qiXTF6_4reVRr_o8ABsvPo_rS6A%26oi%3Dscholaralrt#search=%22http%3A%2F%2Fworks.bepress.com%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1009%26context%3Djen_schneider%22 Delborne, J., & Schneider, J. (2011). Moving Forward with Citizen Deliberation: Lessons and Inspiration from the National Citizens’ Technology Forum.]</ref>

====Consensus Conferences====
See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_conferences wikipedia].

==References==
<references/>

[[category: deliberation]]
[[category:framework]]