|
|
| (89 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | aspects of deliberation
| + | __TOC__ |
| | + | ==Definition of deliberation== |
| | | | |
| − | ==Democratic assessment of collaborative planning processes==
| + | Deliberation is communications processes conducted by people, aimed to find solutions, based on optimally corroborated knowledge, relevant to the solution. It is usually used to achieve maximum cooperation in using a common resource, and/or for achieving collaborative action, based on maximum free choice. |
| − | ===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===
| + | Solutions are achieved by: |
| − | 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>):
| + | * agreeing on the process of deliberation (also known as [[Munchausen Problem]]) |
| − | #''Effective participation''
| + | * Working toward a common understanding of the relevant field of knowledge (Creation of corroborated [[SON]]) |
| − | #''Voting equality''
| + | * Proposition of [[option|options]] based on [[SON]]. |
| − | #''Enlightened understanding''
| + | * Understanding of the [[resource|resources]] and [[value|values]] each [[option]] bare. |
| − | #''Control of the agenda''
| + | * Personal and collaborative [[evaluation]] of the [[option|options]] |
| − | #''Inclusion of all adults''
| + | * [[Selection]] optimal options, based on the evaluation. |
| | + | * In optimal cases, there will be an optimal option, which all select freely. |
| | + | * If people need to use the common resource or take coordinated collaborative action, they will need to achieve a single option or several options that do not contradict each other. |
| | + | Deliberation consumes resources (Time, thinking, meeting-places, etc.), and may take a lot of resources. We may reduce resource consumption by developing more efficient processes. |
| | + | If people need to resolve disagreement and the deliberation wouldn’t produce a solution, by the available resources, they can take other means of decision making, like voting, sortition, or decision by minority or a single person. Yet these methods sometimes may harm the interests of some people and therefore may result in an unwillingness to cooperate or even resist the resolution. Even in such circumstances, setting some time and resources to deliberation may result in a decision that may elevate the will to cooperate. |
| | | | |
| − | ===Measuring Deliberation===
| + | Deliberation is affected by the medium which is used during the process. It is also affected by social, cognitional, and emotional phenomena. |
| − | Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index (2003)<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>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Layers of Coordination==
| |
| − | | |
| − | There are several layers of coordination that are needed in order to achieve agreement:
| |
| − | # [[Communication medium]] - The medium of coordination should be adjusted to serve the communication betweeen the members.
| |
| − | # [[SON]] - In order to cooperate, people have to understand each other. The Social Objects Network (SON), is the way people encode the perceive the world. To coordinate well, they have to adjust their SONs.
| |
| − | # [[Culture]] - Different cultures have different communication styles. When participant do not share the same culture, they may not understand other culture codes ([[SON]]s) and the appropriate manners, according to that culture, therefore resulting mistrust and disgust, which will result failure to cooperate.
| |
| − | # [[Values]] - Values are the way we evaluate the outcome of our decisions. For instance, some may evaluate "The bottom line (monetary gains)", while other may evaluate the well-being of the workers and customers. Those two different values may create disagreement about the preferred [[options]] that should be taken.
| |
| − | # [[Interests]] - Any outcome from the [[options]] that the group may take, may harm or gain any one of her members (or the community that the group serve). So members will try to evaluate the gains and harms and will search for the best option that will serve their interests. Many times members will try to use "[[hidden agenda|hidden agendas]]" discourse to divert the options taken to achieve selfish interests. Therefore deliberation experts say it is important to know each member interests and put them on the open so no hidden agendas will subvert the decision.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Systematic Approach To Deliberation==
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Justification of Deliberation===
| |
| − | [[justification of deliberation]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | The legitimecy of a system of deliberation and [[decision making]], depend on it's efficiency in promoting long-term prosperty of the members of the group. A good system will be a one that need low investment of resources by the citizens in the act of decision making and achieve fast decisions and yeald decisions that enable larger parts of the populations to flourish.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Deliberation systems have three main functions, according to the the writers of Deliberative systems<ref>Parkinson, J., & Mansbridge, J. (Eds.). (2012). Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, Cambridge University Press. p.10-12</ref>.
| |
| − | # '''Epistemic''' - Good deliberation should produce well corroborated and inter-subjective [[SON]]. It should produced unbiased decisions, and eliminate as much as possible [[group thinking]]. The decision by the citizens will be well informed.
| |
| − | # '''Ethic''' - Good deliberation will take the needs of all members and will produce optimal inclusive solutions. A solution that will enable all members to feel that they are benefiting from being a members in the group.
| |
| − | # '''Democratic''' - People will engage shared challenges, will recognize and understand on other citizens, and will be responsible for the acts taken by the state. This will make the citizens influential, involved and responsible. It will strength the [[social capital]] and the education of the citizens. It will strive to get as much inclusive solution so that everybody will feel that she or he is been concerned as important and equal citizen.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===On using Experts in Deliberation===
| |
| − | Although experts are sometimes crucial for deliberation, because they hold more corroborated [[SON]], there are some concern that should be addresses when expert are taking part in a deliberation. Expert may harm deliberation in those aspects:
| |
| − | * Epistemically, delegation of deliberation to expert can promote citizen ignorance.
| |
| − | * Experts may be biased (as was suggested by Loerenz et al.<ref>[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/10/1008636108.full.pdf Lorenz et al., How social infulence can underminr the wisdom of the crowds effect, 2011, PNAS]</ref>)
| |
| − | * The world view of the experts can be very narrow, and may have low representation of variety of important SON to the decision making. The may have lack of emotional perspective of the population, or may ignore ethical or democratic principles.
| |
| − | * Experts can be influenced by some major school of thoughts that prevail in the academy, which is not part of the wider population ideas.
| |
| − | * Expert may be part of well educated elite which are not good representative of the whole public, and may promote decision in the lite of their elite world-view.
| |
| − | * Experts may also lack the will or the understanding of reaching the ability of a group to act, or to reach high degree of consensus. Groups needs some inner adjustment to happen, so the can act. Some more able people need should be addressed, so they will want to move the group towards it's goals. Or a group should reach high degree of consensus to avoid grudge between groups. Experts decisions may not take these factors into account.
| |
| − | * Experts may need to distance themselves from the some times half-backed thoughts of populism, but they should also avoid alienation from the crowds.
| |
| − | * Exclusion of non-experts from the process of decision making may threatens the foundations of democracy itself, as the rule by the people.
| |
| − | * Even if Experts do not include non-experts in the process of building the models from which deliberation is growing, can shift the decision making, and let experts control the decision making.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Epistemic Considerations==
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Epistemology of Deliberation]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[the problem of coordination]]
| |
| − | ==Settings of Deliberation==
| |
| − | [[Limitations on group size]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[large groups on-line deliberation]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[MO deliberation]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[face to face agreements]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Distortions in Reason==
| |
| − | For unloigical and intutive reasoning, see [[decision making#Intuitive Decision Making|Intuitive Decision Making in "Decision Making"]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[hidden agenda]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Psychological considerations==
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[FFFF and deliberation]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Settings that promote system 2 discussion]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==methods of deliberation==
| |
| − | [[deliberative polls]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[online deliberation]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Criticism on deliberation==
| |
| − | [[criticism on deliberation]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==See Also==
| |
| − | *[[Decision Making]]
| |
| − | *[[online deliberation]]
| |
| − | *[[Israeli debate culture]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [http://blog.slideshare.net/2013/11/20/the-science-behind-storytelling-and-why-it-matters/index.html?sf19668533=1&sf20736634=1 the science of story telling]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==References==
| |
| − | <references/>
| |
| − | [[category: deliberation]]
| |
Deliberation is communications processes conducted by people, aimed to find solutions, based on optimally corroborated knowledge, relevant to the solution. It is usually used to achieve maximum cooperation in using a common resource, and/or for achieving collaborative action, based on maximum free choice.
Deliberation consumes resources (Time, thinking, meeting-places, etc.), and may take a lot of resources. We may reduce resource consumption by developing more efficient processes.
If people need to resolve disagreement and the deliberation wouldn’t produce a solution, by the available resources, they can take other means of decision making, like voting, sortition, or decision by minority or a single person. Yet these methods sometimes may harm the interests of some people and therefore may result in an unwillingness to cooperate or even resist the resolution. Even in such circumstances, setting some time and resources to deliberation may result in a decision that may elevate the will to cooperate.
Deliberation is affected by the medium which is used during the process. It is also affected by social, cognitional, and emotional phenomena.