|
|
| (37 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | aspects of deliberation
| + | __TOC__ |
| | + | ==Definition of deliberation== |
| | | | |
| − | ==Theories of 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. |
| − | ===Jorgan Haberamas===
| |
| | | | |
| − | ====Rationality====
| + | Solutions are achieved by: |
| − | Rationality as the ability to manipulate the world in efficient way or make explisit arguments and stand criticisem<ref>Habermas, J. (1986). Communicative rationality and the theories of meaning and action. Habermas (1998f), 183–214.</ref>
| + | * agreeing on the process of deliberation (also known as [[Munchausen Problem]]) |
| − | ====Public Sphare====
| + | * Working toward a common understanding of the relevant field of knowledge (Creation of corroborated [[SON]]) |
| − | In his historical analysis, Habermas points out three so-called "institutional criteria" as preconditions for the emergence of the new public sphere. The discursive arenas, such as Britain’s coffee houses, France’s salons and Germany’s Tischgesellschaften "may have differed in the size and compositions of their publics, the style of their proceedings, the climate of their debates, and their topical orientations", but "they all organized discussion among people that tended to be ongoing; hence they had a number of institutional criteria in common":[22] | + | * Proposition of [[option|options]] based on [[SON]]. |
| | + | * Understanding of the [[resource|resources]] and [[value|values]] each [[option]] bare. |
| | + | * Personal and collaborative [[evaluation]] of the [[option|options]] |
| | + | * [[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. |
| | | | |
| − | * '''Disregard of status''': Preservation of "a kind of social intercourse that, far from presupposing the equality of status, disregarded status altogether. [...] Not that this idea of the public was actually realized in earnest in the coffee houses, salons, and the societies; but as an idea it had become institutionalized and thereby stated as an objective claim. If not realized, it was at least consequential." (loc.cit.)
| + | Deliberation is affected by the medium which is used during the process. It is also affected by social, cognitional, and emotional phenomena. |
| − | * '''Domain of common concern''': "... discussion within such a public presupposed the problematization of areas that until then had not been questioned. The domain of ‘common concern’ which was the object of public critical attention remained a preserve in which church and state authorities had the monopoly of interpretation. [...] The private people for whom the cultural product became available as a commodity profaned it inasmuch as they had to determine its meaning on their own (by way of rational communication with one another), verbalize it, and thus state explicitly what precisely in its implicitness for so long could assert its authority." (loc.cit.)
| |
| − | * '''Inclusivity''': However exclusive the public might be in any given instance, it could never close itself off entirely and become consolidated as a clique; for it always understood and found itself immersed within a more inclusive public of all private people, persons who – insofar as they were propertied and educated – as readers, listeners, and spectators could avail themselves via the market of the objects that were subject to discussion. The issues discussed became ‘general’ not merely in their significance, but also in their accessibility: everyone had to be able to participate. [...] Wherever the public established itself institutionally as a stable group of discussants, it did not equate itself with the public but at most claimed to act as its mouthpiece, in its name, perhaps even as its educator – the new form of bourgeois representation" (loc.cit.).(from <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sphere#J.C3.BCrgen_Habermas:_bourgeois_public_sphere Public sphere. Public sphere. (2014, March 16). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.]</ref>)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Cohen Joshua===
| |
| − | From <ref>Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy, 342.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''The public good and not the sector good''':
| |
| − | :Based on Rawl's justice: In a well-ordered democracy, political debate is organized around alternative conceptions of the public good. So an ideal pluralist scheme, in which democratic politics consists of fair bargaining among groups each of which pursues its particular or sectional interest, is unsuited to a just society<ref>Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice (Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University.p360-361</ref>Citizens and parties operating in the political arena ought not to ‘take a narrow or group-interested standpoint’ (p. 360). And parties should only be responsive to demands that are ‘argued for openly by reference to a conception of the public good’ (pp. 226, 472).Public explanations and justifications of laws and policies are to be cast in terms of conceptions of the [[common good]] (conceptions that, on Rawls’s view, must be consistent with the [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPWpvpgZY9g two principles of justice]), and public deliberation should aim to work out the details of such conceptions and to apply them to particular issues of public policy (p. 362).
| |
| − | | |
| − | In debate and common disccusions in the Knesset, parties are arguing for their narrow intrests, and not the common good. Deliberation should help a common good resulotions.
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''In a just society political opportunities and powers must be independent of economic or social position''':
| |
| − | | |
| − | It should be taken care that the political decisions are not influenced by concentrations of money and social class<ref>Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice (Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University. pp. 225–6, 277–8; 1982, pp.42–3.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''The development of of political competence''':
| |
| − | :Third, democratic politics should be ordered in ways that provide a basis for selfrespect,that encourage the development of a sense of political competence, and that contribute to the formation of a sense of justice.it should fix ‘the foundations for civic friendship and [shape] the ethos of political culture’ (Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice (Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University. p. 234).
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Sum:'''
| |
| − | When properly conducted, then, democratic politics involves public deliberation focused on the ''common good,'' requires some form of manifest ''equality among citizens'',and shapes ''the identity and interests of citizens'' in ways that contribute to the formation of a ''public conception of common good''.
| |
| − | ====Five defentions of Deliberative process====
| |
| − | # '''A Continuous system for governing the group''': A deliberative democracy is an ongoing and independent association, whose members expect it to continue into the indefinite future.
| |
| − | # '''To their deliberation there are results''': The members of the association share (and it is common knowledge that they share) the view that the appropriate terms of association provide a framework for or are the results of their deliberation. They share, that is, a commitment to coordinating their activities within institutions that make deliberation possible and according to norms that they arrive at through their deliberation. For them, free deliberation among equals is the basis of legitimacy.
| |
| − | # '''Plurality of minds''': A deliberative democracy is a pluralistic association. The members have diverse preferences, convictions and ideals concerning the conduct of their own lives. While sharing a commitment to the deliberative resolution of problems of collective choice (D2), they also have divergent aims, and do not think that some particular set of preferences, convictions or ideals is mandatory.
| |
| − | # '''Connection between disicions and results as source of legitmecy''': Because the members of a democratic association regard deliberative procedures as the source of legitimacy, it is important to them that the terms of their association not merely be the results of their deliberation, but also be manifest to them as such. They prefer institutions in which the connections between deliberation and outcomes are evident to ones in which the connections are less clear.
| |
| − | # '''Every body is capble of deliberating''': The members recognize one another as having deliberative capacities, i.e. the capacities required for entering into a public exchange of reasons and for acting on the result of such public reasoning.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Three steps of Deliberation====
| |
| − | For a deliberative process there are three steps:
| |
| − | # There is a need to decide on an agenda.
| |
| − | # To propose alternative solutions to the problems on the agenda.Supporting those solutions with reasons.
| |
| − | # Conclude by settling on an alternative.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Priciples of Deliberation====
| |
| − | # Deliberation is free. No other force then reason can be used.
| |
| − | # Parites should use reason to explain their motives and solutions.
| |
| − | # All parties are equal.
| |
| − | # Deliberation strive to achive rationaly motivated consensus. If not, it will reach majority role by voting.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Gutmann and Thompson's model===
| |
| − | Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson’s definition captures the elements that are found in most conceptions of deliberative democracy. They define it as “a form of government in which free and equal citizens and their representatives justify decisions in a process in which they give one another reasons that are mutually acceptable and generally accessible, with the aim of reaching decisions that are binding on all at present but open to challenge in the future.”<ref>Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson (2004). ''Why Deliberative Democracy?'' pp. 3-7.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | They state that deliberative democracy has four requirements, which refer to the kind of reasons that citizens and their representatives are expected to give to one another:
| |
| − | # Reciprocal. The reasons should be acceptable to free and equal persons seeking fair terms of cooperation.
| |
| − | # Accessible. The reasons must be given in public and the content must be understandable to the relevant audience.
| |
| − | # Binding. The reason-giving process leads to a decision or law that is enforced for some period of time. The participants do not deliberate just for the sake of deliberation or for individual enlightenment.
| |
| − | # Dynamic or Provisional. The participants must keep open the possibility of changing their minds, and continuing a reason-giving dialogue that can challenge previous decisions and laws.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Deliberation Effects==
| |
| − | | |
| − | From Karpowitz 2011<ref>Karpowitz, C. F., & Mendelberg, T. (2011). An experimental approach to citizen deliberation. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, 258–272.</ref>:
| |
| − | | |
| − | There are Deliberative theories as there theorists. The theories do not agree between them (Macedo 1999), but there is an agreement about what the effects of deliberation (Mendelberg 2002, Mutz 2008).
| |
| − | Hibbing and Theiss-Morse (2002) summarize three broad categories of effects: ''better citizens'', ''better decisions'', more ''legitimate system''.
| |
| − | * Better citizenship
| |
| − | ** Increase tolerance and empathy (Warren 1992, Gutman and Thompson 1996, 2004)
| |
| − | ** Decrees in the distortions of public opinion (Convers 1964….), leading to more political knowledge and awareness. And more cohence between related opinions (Fishkin 1995)
| |
| − | ** Better understanding of one own interests and better ability to make arguments (Warren 1992, Chambers 1996, 2003)
| |
| − | ** Better understanding of other's point of view. And ability to recognize their moral standings (Habermas 1989, 1996, Chambers 1996, Gutman&Thompson 1996, 2004)
| |
| − | ** A sense of empowerment (Fishkin 1995, Bohman 1997)
| |
| − | ** A greate sense of public spiritedness (Warner 1992), and increase willingness to recognize community values, and to compromise (Mansbridge 1983, Chambers 1996, But see Sanders 1997, Young 2000).
| |
| − | ** A tendency to practice more in public afferis (Barber 1984, Gastil deess, & Wiser 2002, Gastil et al. 2008)
| |
| − | * Quality of decisions
| |
| − | ** Decision will be grounded on increased knowledge, a more complete set of arguments, a fuller understandin of the reasons for disagreemnts, amd a more generous attitude tword all groups in society, especialy those who have the least (Chambers 1996, Gutman and Thompson 2004)
| |
| − | * Legitmate system
| |
| − | ** More trust the the decision was done fairly. (Thomson 2008, Manin 1987). The fairness is mostly important when the is a conflict, or when there is no trust in the system (BenHabib1996, Mansberg 1983, Chambers 1996)
| |
| − | ===Opinions Shift===
| |
| − | | |
| − | Some studies show major and radical changes in opinions at group level (Fishkin & Luskin 1999; Luskin et al. 2002; Goodin & Niemeyer 2003; Blais et al. 2008) whereas others show only minor changes (Denver et al. 1995; Merkle 1996; Hall et al. 2011). But most of the time, there are opinion changes at the individual level with movements in different directions that go undetected at the group level (Barabas 2004; Andersen & Hansen 2007).
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Democratic assessment of collaborative planning processes==
| |
| − | ===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===
| |
| − | 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>):
| |
| − | #''Effective participation''
| |
| − | #''Voting equality''
| |
| − | #''Enlightened understanding''
| |
| − | #''Control of the agenda''
| |
| − | #''Inclusion of all adults''
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Measuring Deliberation===
| |
| − | For review look at<ref>[http://www.la1.psu.edu/cas/jgastil/pdfs/MeasuringGroupDeliberation.pdf Black, Laura W., et al. "Methods for analyzing and measuring group deliberation." Sourcebook of political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (2011): 323-345.]</ref>, and look at my [http://www.mindmeister.com/372331221/_ mind map] based on the above.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ''Micro-analytic'' approaches study the quality of deliberation through closely analyzing the content of participants’ comments during the deliberative process. The ''macro-analytic'' approach, in turn, asks coders to make summary judgments of the discussion as a whole.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Studies using ''direct measures'' focus on the actual process of deliberation, while studies using ''indirect measures'' assess deliberation based on either antecedents (for instance, by measuring the extent to which conditions necessary for deliberation are met) or outcomes of the discussion (for example, by measuring post-deliberation changes in participants.
| |
| − | ’ preferences).
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Direct Measurments====
| |
| − | Those that measure deliberation directly examine the deliberative discussion to determine the extent to which the discussion corresponds to theoretical conceptions of deliberation.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The most common direct measurement of deliberation in small groups is what we call discussion analysis, which includes a range of methods used to systematically evaluate the communication engaged in during a deliberative discussion (also called ''micro-measurments''). Another common method used for the direct study of deliberation is to ask participants for their own assessments of the deliberative process (also called ''macro-measurments''). This is typically done through post-deliberation surveys or interviews in which respondents reflect on their experience as a participant and answer questions about the deliberative quality of the discussion. The case study will be the final direct approach we review. Discussion.
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''DQI''': Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index (2003), based on Habermas theories<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>.
| |
| − | | |
| − | =====Bachtiger 2009=====
| |
| − | An attmept to improve DQI<ref>[http://www.ash.harvard.edu/extension/ash/docs/baechtiger.pdf Bachtiger, A., et al. "Measuring deliberation 2.0: standards, discourse types, and sequenzialization." ECPR General Conference, Potsdam. 2009.]</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | * '''Type I deliberation'''
| |
| − | ** ''Equality'' - measured by precentage of participation and number of words for each participent (mean?)
| |
| − | ** ''Rational Justification'':
| |
| − | *** no justification
| |
| − | *** inferior justification where the linkage between reasons and conclusion is tenuous.
| |
| − | *** qualified justification where a linkage between reasons and conclusion is made.
| |
| − | *** sophisticated justification (broad) where at least two complete justifications are given.
| |
| − | *** sophisticated justification (in depth) when at least one justification is explored in-depth, i.e., a problem is examined in a quasi-scientific way from various viewpoints.
| |
| − | ** ''Common Good Orientation'': The importance of referring to the common good is mainly stressed by deliberative theorists drawing on Rawls.
| |
| − | *** whether arguments are cast in terms of narrow group or constituency interests.
| |
| − | *** whether there is neutral reference or mixed reference (i.e., reference to both narrow group interest and common good).
| |
| − | *** whether there is a reference to the common good. With regard to the common good, we focus both on the common good stated in utilitarian terms, i.e. as the best solution for the greatest number of people
| |
| − | *** the common good expressed through the difference principle, i.e. the common good is served when the least advantaged in a society are helped (Rawls 1971).
| |
| − | ** ''Respect Toward Demands and Counterarguments''
| |
| − | *** speakers degrade.
| |
| − | *** treat neutrally.
| |
| − | *** value.
| |
| − | *** agree
| |
| − | ** ''Interactivity'': whether participants refer to other participants and to other participants’ arguments.
| |
| − | ** ''Cunstructive Politics'': This indicator is based upon the principal goal of type I deliberation to reach consensus.
| |
| − | *** positional politics form the lowest level.
| |
| − | *** alternative proposals, i.e. proposals that attempt to mediate but that do not fit the current agenda.
| |
| − | *** consensus appeals.
| |
| − | *** mediating proposals.
| |
| − | ** ''Trthfulness'': There is no way to mesure it by direct obsevations.
| |
| − | * '''Type II Deliberation''':
| |
| − | ** ''Story Telling'': “story-telling” is the most important component of alternative forms of communication. They demonstrate that “story-telling” can play a central role in deliberative processes: “we find that narrative’s conventional openness to interpretation – in essence, its ambiguity – proved a surprising deliberative resource for people with marginalized points of view.”<ref>[http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~polletta/Articles%20and%20Book%20Chapters_files/2006%20polletta%20lee%20telling%20stories%20asr.pdf Polletta, F., & Lee, J. (2006). Is telling stories good for democracy? Rhetoric in public deliberation after 9/11. American Sociological Review, 71(5), 699–721. p.710]</ref>. They use "sourcing" acording to Stormer-Galley<ref>Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), 12.</ref>
| |
| − | ** ''Deliberative Negoatiations'':
| |
| − | *** deliberative negoatiations: using only arguments.
| |
| − | *** non-deliberative negoatiations: using threts or implicit threts.count whether a speech contains threats or promises<ref>Holzinger, K. (2001). Kommunikationsmodi und Handlungstypen in den Internationalen Beziehungen. Anmerkungen zu einigen irref{ü}hrenden Dichotomien. Zeitschrift F{ü}r Internationale Beziehungen, 243–286.</ref>.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Diffrent methods of deliberation should have differnt expectd values in the fifferent parts.
| |
| − | [[File:Bechtiger 2009 table2.gif |600px|thumb|center|From Bechtiger 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>]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Holtinger (In German)<ref>Holzinger, Katharina. 2001. Kommunikationsmodi und Handlungstypen in den Internationalen Beziehungen. Anmerkungen zu einigen irreführenden Dichotomien. Politische Vierteljahreschrift 42, 414-446</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Stromer-Galley''': read<ref>[http://www.publicdeliberation.net/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&context=jpd Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), 12.]</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Indirect Measurments====
| |
| − | Studies using indirect measures assess deliberation based on either antecedents (for example, by measuring the extent to which conditions necessary for deliberation are met) or outcomes of the discussion (for example, by measuring post-deliberation changes in participants).
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Type I and Type II Deliberation==
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Type II Deliberation===
| |
| − | In the past decade, there have been several attempts to strip deliberation off its rationalist bias. The limits of this first conception of deliberation have been repeatedly pointed out by various scholars: difference democrats advocate the respect for differences2 jeopardised
| |
| − | by a procedural conception of deliberation (Young, 1996; Sanders 1997; Young, 1999; Young, 2001), radical democrats go a step further in accusing deliberative democracy of concealing the oppressive dimension of our current liberal and oligarchic democratic systems (Mouffe, 1996; Rancière, 2006), and theoreticians of social choice reject the normative possibility of overcoming private interests through rational discussion3 (Austen-Smith and Riker, 1987; Austen-Smith, 1990; Austen-Smith, 1992; Dryzek,2000; Dryzek, 2007)(from<ref>Laurence Monnoyer-Smith, 2012, Technology and the quality of public deliberation: a comparison between on and offline participation</ref>). Difference democrats and feminists allege that deliberative theorists’ focus on rational, dispassionate discussion creates a stifling uniformity and constrains deliberation (e.g., Sanders 1997<ref>Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25(3), 347–376.</ref>). According to Sanders, many (usually) disadvantaged people do not engage in idealized forms of deliberation, which suits only a privileged few. Therefore, difference democrats and feminists stress the need to admit wider forms of communication – such as testimony, storytelling, or rhetoric – to avoid these constraints. Following Mansbridge et al. (2009)<ref>Mansbridge, J. J. (2009). Deliberative and non-deliberative negotiations.</ref> self-interest must also have a place in deliberative models: “Including self-interest in deliberative democracy reduces the possibility of exploitation, introduces information that facilitates reasonable solutions and the identification of integrative outcomes, and also motivates vigorous and creative deliberation. Excluding self-interest from deliberative democracy is likely to produce obfuscation.” Empirical research also demonstrates that bargaining - representing the central instrument of expressing and accomplishing self-interest in negotiations - and deliberation usually go together in reality<ref>Risse, T. (2004). Global governance and communicative action. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 288–313.</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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Metaconsensus===
| |
| − | Dryzek and mm think that meta consensus should be gained based on how to conduct the deliberation process.<ref>Dryzek, John S. and Simon J. Niemeyer. 2006. Reconciling pluralism and consensus a spolitical ideals. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 634–49.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Parts of Deliberation==
| |
| − | ===Psychology===
| |
| − | ====Empathy====
| |
| − | Empathy is based on a willingness to listen to the other (Jennstål 2008, 155). By talking about their personal experiences participants become more familiar with one another and more vulnerable to each other, fostering empathy and trust (Rosenberg 2007, 355).
| |
| − | ====Trust====
| |
| − | Interpersonal trust is about whether you believe that most people can be trusted. According to Uslaner (2001) trust is not dependent on ad hoc experiences, i.e. attitudes towards other people is quite stable and gained experience by interacting with others does not affect the level of trust significantly. The grounds set early in life and trust in other people is not affected by affections.
| |
| − | Generalized trust is the belief that most people can be trusted while particular trust includes trust only for those who are like oneself. Particular trust can exacerbate conflicts between groups because it causes differences between the groups to be highlighted while generalized trust has a positive effect on people's engagement in society. To socialize with like-minded does not mean that one automatically trusts people one do not know. The single most important factor to increase generalized trust is to make people believe in a good future. When people regard the future as good the trust for other people, strangers and friends, increase (Uslaner 2001, 573).
| |
| − | ====The effect of trust and empathy on changing opinion====
| |
| − | | |
| − | Marina Lindell expect that empathy and trust are conducive to opinion moderation. Following Mutz (2002, 121), she expect that people who can see things from other people's perspectives – and have high levels of trust as well - are open to consider opinions that differ from their own. Conversely, people with low levels of empathy and trust are expected to polarize more frequently<ref>Marina Lindell, 2014, What Drives the Polarization and Moderation of Opinions? Evidence from a Finnish Citizen Experiment on Immigration</ref>.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Epistemic Considerations==
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Epistemology of Deliberation]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[the problem of coordination]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Settings of Deliberation==
| |
| − | ===Open Discussion===
| |
| − | A discussion that open a series of questions about a topic(see Kaner 2007<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>)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Converging Discussion===
| |
| − | Due to the problem of selecting from multiple of choices (eg Condercent-arrow problem of social choice<ref>David van Mill, ‘The Possibility of Rational Outcomes from Democratic Discourse and Procedures’, Journal of Politics 58 (1996), 734-52. </ref><ref>Dryzek, J. S., List, C., & others. (2003). Social choice theory and deliberative democracy: a reconciliation. British Journal of Political Science, 33(1), 1–28. see the intoduction until reference 22</ref>) we need converging discussion.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Releted Matrials===
| |
| − | [[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.