Actions

Difference between revisions of "Main Page"

From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki

(→‎Bulding Blocks of Deliberation)
(→‎Introduction)
 
(296 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
<p style="font-size: 200%;  line-height: 1.3">''Deliberative Democracy''</p>
+
<p style="font-size: 200%;  line-height: 1.3">''On Deliberation</p>
−
<p style="font-size: 125%;  line-height: 1.3">Theories of Knowledge, Psychology, Deliberation and Government</p>
+
<p style="font-size: 125%;  line-height: 1.3">Theory and Practice in Deliberative Democracy</p>
−
<p style="font-size: 125%;  line-height: 1.3">By [[User:WinSysop|Tal Yaron]]</p>
+
<p style="font-size: 170%;  line-height: 1.5">By [[user:WinSysop|Tal Yaron]]</p>
−
<br>
 
 
<br>
 
<br>
  
−
{|style="color:white; background-color:blue;" cellpadding="5" class="wikitable" width="70%"
+
===Our Mission===
−
|-
+
The objective of this wiki-paper is to foster a culture that embraces the principles of deliberation and democratic decision-making while also advancing the corresponding methodologies and technologies. In pursuit of this mission, we are formulating a comprehensive theory of deliberative democracy. This theory draws on insights from various interdisciplinary fields, including [[Epistemology|philosophy]], neuroscience, and the extensive literature on deliberative democracy within the social sciences.
−
|
 
−
[[File:English flag.png|framless|left|40px]]
 
−
This site was written by a non-English speaking writer. Any help in improving the readbility will be much appreciated.[[User:WinSysop|Tal Yaron]] 02:19, 30 December 2012 (IST)
 
−
|}
 
−
{{stub|[[User:WinSysop|Tal Yaron]] 10:26, 9 July 2014 (IDT)}}
 
  
−
==Goals of this Wiki==
+
<br>
−
+
<p>'''Editing & Contributions''': If you want to help editing or writing in this wiki, please contact tal dot yaron at gmail dot com.</p>
−
This wiki is designed to be the base for a coherent set of theories for understanding and developing deliberative Democracy practices. It will be home for different aspects of deliberative society, ranging from [[epistemology]], individual [[psychology]], [[education]], [[learning]], individual growth, and to the understanding of [[groups dynamics]], [[deliberation]], [[decision making]], [[Government]], [[Peace-War]] and international relationships.
 
−
 
 
−
It will be based on [[scientific research]], [http://participedia.net evidential exprience], [[epistemology]] and some original hypothesis.
 
  
 
__TOC__
 
__TOC__
  
−
==Why do we need deliberation?==
+
==Introduction==
−
 
+
Deliberative democracy is a democratic approach that places citizen deliberation at its core, emphasizing broad public involvement in decision-making processes. It champions the idea that all citizens should have an equal voice and influence in shaping public solutions, regardless of their level of expertise on the subject. This principle stems from the recognition that each citizen has a stake in public decisions, which can profoundly impact their lives.
−
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.
 
−
 
 
−
==Values of Deliberation==
 
−
===Equal Participation===
 
−
====Bias of 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>.
 
−
 
 
−
=====Level 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===
 
−
===Rawls' Justice===
 
−
===Mill's Public Sphare Without private Sphare===
 
−
===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====
 
−
 
 
−
==Bulding Blocks of Deliberation==
 
−
For another frame of analyzing the bulding blocks of deliberation see 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'', the ''cycle'' and the ''doing'' and ''learning from doing'', which help to create more delicate and group-wise decisions, and learn from exprience.
 
−
 
 
−
===SON===
 
−
what is a [[SON]]
 
−
====Why do We Need Social Knowledge in Deliberation====
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
====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====
 
−
[[Falsification]]
 
−
 
 
−
====Experts Knowledge====
 
−
 
 
−
====Integration of Experts Knowledge with Laymen Knowledge====
 
−
 
 
−
===Options===
 
−
 
 
−
WHAT IS AN [[option]]?
 
−
Methods for creating options
 
−
 
 
−
===Evaluating===
 
−
[[consequence]]
 
−
 
 
−
[[value]]
 
−
 
 
−
===Synthesizing===
 
−
[[synthesizing]]
 
−
 
 
−
===The cycle of Creating SON, Creating Options, Evaluating and Synthsizing===
 
−
 
 
−
===Selecting===
 
−
 
 
−
===Doing===
 
−
 
 
−
===Learning From Experience===
 
−
 
 
−
==Effects in 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.
 
  
−
====Culture====
+
However, the challenge arises when attempting to include every citizen in the deliberative process, as it can lead to lengthy and unwieldy meetings. Many individuals aspire to contribute their perspectives, propose unique solutions, or critique existing ideas. While noble in principle, this equal deliberation can become a laborious and time-consuming endeavor. For instance, granting each resident an equal say in a small town could extend deliberations for years. As the decision-making body expands, so does the time and energy required to reach an equitable decision. Unfortunately, this protracted process can deter participation, ultimately undermining the goal of equal deliberation.
−
How culture may effect deliberation?
 
  
−
===Participation===
+
To uphold the ideals of equal deliberation while streamlining the process to accommodate larger populations, it is imperative to gain a deeper understanding of how deliberation functions, including its constituent elements and their interactions. By comprehending these dynamics, we can propose more efficient methods for public deliberation and even develop innovative applications to facilitate the engagement of extensive citizen groups in public decision-making.
−
===Communication===
 
−
====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====
+
On this website, we will present a comprehensive theory that elucidates the critical elements of deliberation and how they interact. Subsequently, we will scrutinize prevalent deliberation practices through the lens of this theory. Finally, we will outline a roadmap for the future of deliberative democracy and develop applications designed to enhance the deliberative process. Our current project, [http://delib-5.web.app delib-5], is an example of this initiative, and its source code is available [https://github.com/talyaron/delib-5-p here].
−
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====
+
==The Challenges==
−
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]].
+
The deliberation process is fraught with substantial challenges, as it necessitates the meaningful engagement of diverse individuals in decision-making, all while meticulously accounting for each unique perspective. This chapter delves into the intricacies of these challenges.
  
−
====Moderation====
+
===Definition of deliberation===
−
Modration style may influance the forums in many ways.
+
Deliberation is an [[organization|organizational]] collaborative decision-making process aiming at finding the organization's [[optimal course of action]] which will result in the best outcomes for the [[stakeholders]], using minimal resources of the organization. In deliberation, all members of the organization are considered equal, all relevant information is taken into account, and the information is validated (see more on [[Values of deliberative-democracy]]).
  
−
====Agenda setting====
+
[[Deliberation|Read more...]]
−
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====
+
===Values of Deliberation===
−
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>
+
Within a democratic framework, the foundational principle lies in the equality of all citizens, where each individual's rights and needs are accorded equal significance in the eyes of the democratic decision-making apparatus. To effectively address the diverse needs and concerns of all citizens within this decision-making context, scholars of deliberative democracy have put forth a set of core values that deliberators should adhere to in their deliberative endeavors.
  
−
===Psychology===
+
[[Values of deliberative-democracy|Read more...]]
−
====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====
+
=== Personal Criterion for selecting options ===
−
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>.
+
In choosing among competing alternatives, it becomes imperative to establish a framework for assessing and distinguishing superior solutions from inferior ones. This chapter undertakes the exploration of criteria employed by participants in the determination of the most favorable solution.
 +
[[Personal Optimising ROI Selection Criterion]] (GPORSC)
 +
===Deliberation-action cycle===
 +
Although a valuable framework, deliberation does not guarantee foolproof outcomes in the quest for optimal solutions. In this chapter, we put forward a proposal aimed at enhancing the caliber of solutions put forth and chosen by participants.
  
−
====Exploration and Exploitation Moods====
+
[[deliberation-action cycle]]
  
−
====Motivation and Inhibition in  Deliberation====
+
==The Elements==
−
=====Limited resources=====
+
To successfully understand deliberation, we suggest that we first have to understand the elements of decision making. The elements are divided into several areas. The first area is the area of cognitive elements, which are the elements that interact in the brain to facilitate a decision. Next is the area of the group in decision making - which elements are crucial for decision making in groups. Then comes the area of communication medium. In this area, we will describe the elements that influence the transformation of information between the group members. In the next areas, we will deal with the psychological, sociological and organizational elements.
−
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.
+
===The epistemic elements of decision making===
 +
Every deliberation Is based on knowledge. Usually, participants don't possess the same body of knowledge and may defer by their worldviews. Therefore understanding how knowledge is built, Is essential for creating a coherent knowledge base for all participants. In this section, we will describe how knowledge is built, and how to corroborate it.
  
−
=====ROI=====
+
[[The epistemic elements of decision making|Read more...]]
−
See Robert Dahal
 
  
−
=====Maslow's Pyramid of needs=====
+
===The Logical elements of decision making===
−
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).
+
The basic entities of decision making in a group, are her members. Every member that takes part in the decision, uses a cognitive process to gather information and make a decision. So, the first step in understanding deliberation is to describe these personal cognitive elements that members are using to make their decisions. When we will understand the personal cognitive elements, we will be able to start to understand the more complex interaction between the members.  
  
−
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.
+
[[The cognitive elements of decision making|read more...]]
  
−
In love and honor needs, people will try to achieve commun undestanding, respect and friendship.  
+
===Neuropsychology Elements in decision making===
 +
Decsions are conducted in a "logical" the manner through [[the cognitive elements of decision making]]. Yet this "logical" thinking is mostly not common. usually people are influenced by an "illogical" ways of thinking. scientists from several disciplines were able to describe these "illogical" ways of thinking, and some of the neural and cognitive mechanism that produce the "illogical" thinking.
  
−
In Honor needs, people will try to gain more honor from others, by beeing more informed or more power over decision making.
+
[[neuropsychology elements in decision making|Read more]]
  
−
In Self-Fulfilment, people will use their special skills in knowledge contribute to the group.
+
===Psychological Elements in decision making===
 +
[[Psychological elements in decision making]]
 +
===Group Elements in Decision Making===
 +
Every deliberation takes place in the context of a group. The group settings and properties may have a large influence on the psychology of the members and the outcome of deliberation. Also, during deliberation, the group may change, as different stakeholders find interest in the decision making. Understanding the factors that within the group and between the group and other groups, is essential to understand mastering of deliberation.
  
−
===Sociology===
+
[[The group in decision making|Read more]]
  
−
====Positive Politics====
+
===Medium Elements in Decision Making===
−
====Homogeneity and Heterogeneity====
+
The Medium which the group is using may have great influence on the deliberative process. For instance, synchronic medium may allow only one participant at a time talk, thus prolonging the time needed for deliberation exponentially as the number of equal participants grow. On the other hand, a-synchronic medium may allow simultaneity of information send and receiving, and thus, reduce the time needed for deliberation. In this chapter we will talk about the effect of the medium on deliberation.
−
===Learning===
 
  
−
==How do We Build the Bulding Blocks?==
+
[[medium in decision making|Read more]]
−
===SON===
 
−
====How do we learn====
 
−
The importance of [[story telling]] and [[curiosity]] for learning.
 
  
−
====How do we Integrate Different levels and areas of Knowledge?====
+
===Organizational Elements in Decision Making===
−
Experts-Laymen problem. Integrating Differnet areas of knowledge
+
[[Organizations in Decision Making]]
−
====How do we Falisify?====
 
  
−
===Options===
+
==Processes==
−
We can use [[priming]], or private investigation.
+
[[General process of deliberation]]
 +
===Face To Face===
 +
====Personal Decision Making====
 +
[[system 1|system 1 decision making]]
 +
====Group Deliberation====
 +
[[Methods in deliberative democracy]]
  
−
===Evaluaiting===
+
===Technologies of Deliberation===
−
===Synthesizing===
+
[[Technologies for deliberation]]
−
===Cycling===
 
−
===Selecting===
 
  
−
==Processes of Deliberation==
+
==Concerns==
−
===NIF===
+
Digital deliberative democracy can be hacked by foreign governments<ref>[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10361146.2021.2023093?scroll=top&needAccess=true Dowling, M.-E. (2022). Foreign interference and digital democracy: is digital era governance putting Australia at risk? <i>Australian Journal of Political Science</i>, <i>0</i>(0), 1–16.]</ref>.
−
[[NIF]] is an abbreviation for [[National Issues Forum]]
 
  
−
===OST===
+
==See Also==
−
===dcCDM===
+
[[old main page]]
  
 +
==References==
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
  
 +
[[category: general]]
 
[[category: deliberation]]
 
[[category: deliberation]]
 +
[[category:framework]]

Latest revision as of 08:26, 2 June 2024

On Deliberation

Theory and Practice in Deliberative Democracy

By Tal Yaron


Our Mission

The objective of this wiki-paper is to foster a culture that embraces the principles of deliberation and democratic decision-making while also advancing the corresponding methodologies and technologies. In pursuit of this mission, we are formulating a comprehensive theory of deliberative democracy. This theory draws on insights from various interdisciplinary fields, including philosophy, neuroscience, and the extensive literature on deliberative democracy within the social sciences.


Editing & Contributions: If you want to help editing or writing in this wiki, please contact tal dot yaron at gmail dot com.

Introduction

Deliberative democracy is a democratic approach that places citizen deliberation at its core, emphasizing broad public involvement in decision-making processes. It champions the idea that all citizens should have an equal voice and influence in shaping public solutions, regardless of their level of expertise on the subject. This principle stems from the recognition that each citizen has a stake in public decisions, which can profoundly impact their lives.

However, the challenge arises when attempting to include every citizen in the deliberative process, as it can lead to lengthy and unwieldy meetings. Many individuals aspire to contribute their perspectives, propose unique solutions, or critique existing ideas. While noble in principle, this equal deliberation can become a laborious and time-consuming endeavor. For instance, granting each resident an equal say in a small town could extend deliberations for years. As the decision-making body expands, so does the time and energy required to reach an equitable decision. Unfortunately, this protracted process can deter participation, ultimately undermining the goal of equal deliberation.

To uphold the ideals of equal deliberation while streamlining the process to accommodate larger populations, it is imperative to gain a deeper understanding of how deliberation functions, including its constituent elements and their interactions. By comprehending these dynamics, we can propose more efficient methods for public deliberation and even develop innovative applications to facilitate the engagement of extensive citizen groups in public decision-making.

On this website, we will present a comprehensive theory that elucidates the critical elements of deliberation and how they interact. Subsequently, we will scrutinize prevalent deliberation practices through the lens of this theory. Finally, we will outline a roadmap for the future of deliberative democracy and develop applications designed to enhance the deliberative process. Our current project, delib-5, is an example of this initiative, and its source code is available here.

The Challenges

The deliberation process is fraught with substantial challenges, as it necessitates the meaningful engagement of diverse individuals in decision-making, all while meticulously accounting for each unique perspective. This chapter delves into the intricacies of these challenges.

Definition of deliberation

Deliberation is an organizational collaborative decision-making process aiming at finding the organization's optimal course of action which will result in the best outcomes for the stakeholders, using minimal resources of the organization. In deliberation, all members of the organization are considered equal, all relevant information is taken into account, and the information is validated (see more on Values of deliberative-democracy).

Read more...

Values of Deliberation

Within a democratic framework, the foundational principle lies in the equality of all citizens, where each individual's rights and needs are accorded equal significance in the eyes of the democratic decision-making apparatus. To effectively address the diverse needs and concerns of all citizens within this decision-making context, scholars of deliberative democracy have put forth a set of core values that deliberators should adhere to in their deliberative endeavors.

Read more...

Personal Criterion for selecting options

In choosing among competing alternatives, it becomes imperative to establish a framework for assessing and distinguishing superior solutions from inferior ones. This chapter undertakes the exploration of criteria employed by participants in the determination of the most favorable solution. Personal Optimising ROI Selection Criterion (GPORSC)

Deliberation-action cycle

Although a valuable framework, deliberation does not guarantee foolproof outcomes in the quest for optimal solutions. In this chapter, we put forward a proposal aimed at enhancing the caliber of solutions put forth and chosen by participants.

deliberation-action cycle

The Elements

To successfully understand deliberation, we suggest that we first have to understand the elements of decision making. The elements are divided into several areas. The first area is the area of cognitive elements, which are the elements that interact in the brain to facilitate a decision. Next is the area of the group in decision making - which elements are crucial for decision making in groups. Then comes the area of communication medium. In this area, we will describe the elements that influence the transformation of information between the group members. In the next areas, we will deal with the psychological, sociological and organizational elements.

The epistemic elements of decision making

Every deliberation Is based on knowledge. Usually, participants don't possess the same body of knowledge and may defer by their worldviews. Therefore understanding how knowledge is built, Is essential for creating a coherent knowledge base for all participants. In this section, we will describe how knowledge is built, and how to corroborate it.

Read more...

The Logical elements of decision making

The basic entities of decision making in a group, are her members. Every member that takes part in the decision, uses a cognitive process to gather information and make a decision. So, the first step in understanding deliberation is to describe these personal cognitive elements that members are using to make their decisions. When we will understand the personal cognitive elements, we will be able to start to understand the more complex interaction between the members.

read more...

Neuropsychology Elements in decision making

Decsions are conducted in a "logical" the manner through the cognitive elements of decision making. Yet this "logical" thinking is mostly not common. usually people are influenced by an "illogical" ways of thinking. scientists from several disciplines were able to describe these "illogical" ways of thinking, and some of the neural and cognitive mechanism that produce the "illogical" thinking.

Read more

Psychological Elements in decision making

Psychological elements in decision making

Group Elements in Decision Making

Every deliberation takes place in the context of a group. The group settings and properties may have a large influence on the psychology of the members and the outcome of deliberation. Also, during deliberation, the group may change, as different stakeholders find interest in the decision making. Understanding the factors that within the group and between the group and other groups, is essential to understand mastering of deliberation.

Read more

Medium Elements in Decision Making

The Medium which the group is using may have great influence on the deliberative process. For instance, synchronic medium may allow only one participant at a time talk, thus prolonging the time needed for deliberation exponentially as the number of equal participants grow. On the other hand, a-synchronic medium may allow simultaneity of information send and receiving, and thus, reduce the time needed for deliberation. In this chapter we will talk about the effect of the medium on deliberation.

Read more

Organizational Elements in Decision Making

Organizations in Decision Making

Processes

General process of deliberation

Face To Face

Personal Decision Making

system 1 decision making

Group Deliberation

Methods in deliberative democracy

Technologies of Deliberation

Technologies for deliberation

Concerns

Digital deliberative democracy can be hacked by foreign governments[1].

See Also

old main page

References

  1. ↑ Dowling, M.-E. (2022). Foreign interference and digital democracy: is digital era governance putting Australia at risk? Australian Journal of Political Science, 0(0), 1–16.
Retrieved from "http://www.delib.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=3987"