Actions

Difference between revisions of "Gastil and Black framework"

From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki

Line 15: Line 15:
 
#All participants should make efforts to fully consider each other’s input.
 
#All participants should make efforts to fully consider each other’s input.
 
#All participants should demonstrate respect for each other.
 
#All participants should demonstrate respect for each other.
 +
 +
==Measuring Deliberation==
 +
See "Content Analysis Procedures and Measures"(p.608)<ref>Black, L. W., Welser, H. T., Cosley, D., & DeGroot, J. M. (2011). self-governance through group discussion in Wikipedia: Measuring deliberation in online groups. Small Group Research, 1046496411406137.</ref>
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 02:42, 21 July 2014

Gastil and Black 2008 suggested five bulding blocks for deliberation[1]:

  1. Creating an information base (SON).
  2. Prioritizing key values at stake (pre-Evaluation)
  3. Identifing wide range of possible solutions (Options)
  4. Weighing the solutions (Evaluation)
  5. Making the best decision possible (selecting)

They base their model of group decision making resesrch[2][3].

Gastil and Black framework gives four aspects of socilogy of deliberation:

  1. All participants should have equal and adequate speaking opportunities.
  2. All participants should attempt to comprehend one another’s views.
  3. All participants should make efforts to fully consider each other’s input.
  4. All participants should demonstrate respect for each other.

Measuring Deliberation

See "Content Analysis Procedures and Measures"(p.608)[4]

References

  1. Gastil, J., & Black, L. W. (2008). Public deliberation as the organizing principle in political communication research. Journal of Public Deliberation, 4.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Black, L. W., Welser, H. T., Cosley, D., & DeGroot, J. M. (2011). self-governance through group discussion in Wikipedia: Measuring deliberation in online groups. Small Group Research, 1046496411406137.