Difference between revisions of "Main Page"
From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki
(→Our Mission) |
(→Introduction) |
||
| (41 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | <p style="font-size: 200%; line-height: 1.3">'' | + | <p style="font-size: 200%; line-height: 1.3">''On Deliberation</p> |
| − | <p style="font-size: 125%; line-height: 1.3">Theory and Practice | + | <p style="font-size: 125%; line-height: 1.3">Theory and Practice in Deliberative Democracy</p> |
| − | <p style="font-size: | + | <p style="font-size: 170%; line-height: 1.5">By [[user:WinSysop|Tal Yaron]]</p> |
<br> | <br> | ||
===Our Mission=== | ===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. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
<br> | <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> | <p>'''Editing & Contributions''': If you want to help editing or writing in this wiki, please contact tal dot yaron at gmail dot com.</p> | ||
| Line 15: | Line 13: | ||
==Introduction== | ==Introduction== | ||
| − | Deliberative democracy is a | + | 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, | + | 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, [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]. | |
==The Challenges== | ==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 [[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]]). | ||
| + | [[Deliberation|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. | ||
[[Values of deliberative-democracy|Read more...]] | [[Values of deliberative-democracy|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== | ==The Elements== | ||
| − | To successfully understand deliberation, | + | 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[The epistemic elements of decision making|Read more...]] | ||
| − | ===The | + | ===The Logical elements of decision making=== |
| − | The basic entities of decision making in a group, are her members. Every member that takes part in decision, uses cognitive process to gather information and make 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. | + | 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. |
[[The cognitive elements of decision making|read more...]] | [[The cognitive elements of decision making|read more...]] | ||
| Line 47: | Line 61: | ||
[[neuropsychology elements in decision making|Read more]] | [[neuropsychology elements in decision making|Read more]] | ||
| + | ===Psychological Elements in decision making=== | ||
| + | [[Psychological elements in decision making]] | ||
===Group 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 large influence on the psychology of the members and the outcome of deliberation. Also, during deliberation, group may change, as different | + | 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. |
[[The group in decision making|Read more]] | [[The group in decision making|Read more]] | ||
| Line 61: | Line 77: | ||
==Processes== | ==Processes== | ||
| + | [[General process of deliberation]] | ||
===Face To Face=== | ===Face To Face=== | ||
====Personal Decision Making==== | ====Personal Decision Making==== | ||
| Line 68: | Line 85: | ||
===Technologies of Deliberation=== | ===Technologies of Deliberation=== | ||
| − | [ | + | [[Technologies for deliberation]] |
| − | [ | + | ==Concerns== |
| + | 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>. | ||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
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.
Contents
- 1 Our Mission
- 2 Introduction
- 3 The Challenges
- 4 The Elements
- 4.1 The epistemic elements of decision making
- 4.2 The Logical elements of decision making
- 4.3 Neuropsychology Elements in decision making
- 4.4 Psychological Elements in decision making
- 4.5 Group Elements in Decision Making
- 4.6 Medium Elements in Decision Making
- 4.7 Organizational Elements in Decision Making
- 5 Processes
- 6 Concerns
- 7 See Also
- 8 References
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Organizational Elements in Decision Making
Organizations in Decision Making
Processes
General process of deliberation
Face To Face
Personal Decision Making
Group Deliberation
Methods in deliberative democracy
Technologies of Deliberation
Concerns
Digital deliberative democracy can be hacked by foreign governments[1].