Actions

Difference between revisions of "Elements in deliberation"

From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki

(→‎Groups Size Elements)
 
(24 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
Elements in deliberation are elemnts that influance the outcome of deliberation. They interact with each other to change the results of deliberation.
+
Elements in deliberation are elemnts that influance the outcome of deliberation. They interact with each other to change the results of deliberation.  
 +
 
 +
See also [[processes of deliberation]]
 +
 
 +
==Participation==
 +
 
 +
===Socioeconomic status and participation===
 +
Some research showed that there is a positive corroloation between participation and socialeconomic status<ref>Rothman, J. (1974). Planning and organizing for social change: Action principles from social science research. Columbia University Press New York.</ref>. Others show small corroloation between status and SE<ref>Salisbury, R. H. (1975). Research on political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 323–341.</ref>. Lindell found that the SE has modrate influance on participation. They found that in the top of SE people tended to participate less<ref>Karjalainen, M., & Rapeli, L. (2014). Who will not deliberate? Attrition in a multi-stage citizen deliberation experiment . Quality & Quantity</ref><ref>Lindell, M. (2014). What Drives the Polarization and Moderation of Opinions? Evidence from a Finnish Citizen Experiment on Immigration. In ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops 2014, workshop “Systematising Comparison of Democratic Innovations: Advanced Explanations of the Emergence, Sustenance and Failure of Participatory Institutions”.</ref>.
 +
 
 +
===Age and Participation===
 +
Lindell, Karjalainen and Rapeli found that people at the at their 30th to their 50th, tennd to particpate less<ref>Karjalainen, M., & Rapeli, L. (2014). Who will not deliberate? Attrition in a multi-stage citizen deliberation experiment . Quality & Quantity</ref><ref>Lindell, M. (2014). What Drives the Polarization and Moderation of Opinions? Evidence from a Finnish Citizen Experiment on Immigration. In ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops 2014, workshop “Systematising Comparison of Democratic Innovations: Advanced Explanations of the Emergence, Sustenance and Failure of Participatory Institutions”.</ref>, probably because of lack of time, due to the intensety of theis period in life.
 +
 
 +
===The size of the society and Participation===
 +
The larger the citizen body, the smaller the participation (according to [[Participation function]] and rational ignourence<ref>Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. The Journal of Political Economy, 135–150.</ref>). This is supported by Dahn on municipalty participating in voting<ref>אבי בן בסט ומומי דהן המשבר ברשויות המקומיות — יעילות מול ייצוגיות 37 )פרסומי
 +
המכון הישראלי לדמוקרטיה, 2008 (.</ref>. The reason that citizens gave was the feeling of lack of influance<ref> יעל ישי "אזרחות עירונית בישראל: בין שיתוף לשותפות" מדינה וחברה 5, 985 ) 2005 (;אפרת וקסמן ודנה בלאנדר דגמים של שיתוף אזרחים )נייר־עמדה מס' 26 , המכון הישראלילדמוקרטיה, 2002 (.</ref>
  
 
==Communication Elements==
 
==Communication Elements==
Line 6: Line 20:
 
===Synchronic or a synchronic===
 
===Synchronic or a synchronic===
  
−
===Social Queues information carries by the meduim===
+
===Social Queues information carried by the meduim===
 
People needs social information, like body language, intonations and facial expressions to better understand each other. The more the medium can transfer social information, the better and faster the mutual understanding will be.Higher social queues can also elevate [[trust]] between participents<ref>Bicchieri, C., Lev-On, A., & Chavez, A. (2010). The medium or the message? Communication relevance and richness in trust games. Synthese, 176(1), 125–147.</ref>. Therefore face to face meetings will be better from video conferences and video conferences will be better the teleconferences, and they will be better than emails (emails will have an advantage in deliberation, because all the formers were synchronous mediums which slow down the pace of group talks, while emails are a synchronous).
 
People needs social information, like body language, intonations and facial expressions to better understand each other. The more the medium can transfer social information, the better and faster the mutual understanding will be.Higher social queues can also elevate [[trust]] between participents<ref>Bicchieri, C., Lev-On, A., & Chavez, A. (2010). The medium or the message? Communication relevance and richness in trust games. Synthese, 176(1), 125–147.</ref>. Therefore face to face meetings will be better from video conferences and video conferences will be better the teleconferences, and they will be better than emails (emails will have an advantage in deliberation, because all the formers were synchronous mediums which slow down the pace of group talks, while emails are a synchronous).
  
Line 16: Line 30:
 
==Groups Size Elements==
 
==Groups Size Elements==
 
'''Summery''':
 
'''Summery''':
−
*The larger the group:
+
*The larger the group is:
 
**The less time there is for indeviduals in synchronous mediums to give their opnions.
 
**The less time there is for indeviduals in synchronous mediums to give their opnions.
−
**In a-sychronous the less times there is for reading each participent.
+
**In a-sychronous medium there is less times to read each participent opinion.
 
**The more potential wisdom there is in a group.
 
**The more potential wisdom there is in a group.
 
**The harder it is to create [[SON]].
 
**The harder it is to create [[SON]].
Line 24: Line 38:
 
==Epistemic Elements==
 
==Epistemic Elements==
 
===Priming===
 
===Priming===
 +
[[Priming]] helps participants to find related ideas and converge into agreed solution, while it may reduce the diversity of opinions.
  
 
===Questions===
 
===Questions===
 
[[RPE]]
 
[[RPE]]
 +
 +
===Inter Perspective===
 +
Inter perspective promte wider undestanding. It helps to better undestand minorities and promote the [[RPE]] and [[Curiosty]] in some participents (usualy more liberals), while creating stress in others that may have high [[need for order]] and who do not like to explore.
 +
 +
===Focal Point===
 +
In every phase of deliberation, different focal point is needed.
 +
====Focus on mutual undersanding====
 +
====Focus on Social Objects====
 +
Focus on social objects can elevate understanding. In a synchronous medium, deliberation about Social Object can elevate their accuracy, and let millions talk simultaneously. Wikipedia and Google are such cases.
 +
====Focus on results====
 +
 +
===Understanding===
 +
In deliberation we need to find ways to elvate the understanding of participents. Graphic represntation, mutual questioning and story-telling are some of these ways.
 +
 +
====Story Telling====
 +
Most people tend to best understand and remember by hearing stories. Story telling help participents better engage the topics in deliberation.
 +
 +
===SON===
 +
[[SON]]
 +
====Creating SON====
 +
 +
====Depth of SON====
 +
 +
How to bridge the [[laymen-experts gap]]?
 +
 +
====Corroboaration of the SON====
 +
How to bridge the [[laymen-experts gap]]?
  
 
==Psychological Elements==
 
==Psychological Elements==
−
[[PFC]] or [[FFFF]]
+
===Fighting vs. Cooperating===
 +
[[FFFF]] vs. [[PFC]]
 +
 
 +
===Exploring vs. Exploiting===
 +
 
  
 +
==Social Elements==
 
===Conformation bias===
 
===Conformation bias===
 
(which is related also to [[priming]]
 
(which is related also to [[priming]]
 
Also, the perceived honor of the speakers.
 
Also, the perceived honor of the speakers.
 +
 +
==See also==
 +
 +
[http://ebook.coop-tic.eu/english/wakka.php?wiki=CooperationIn28Keywords Cooperation in 28 keywords] - an ebook about elements in deliberation.
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
 
[[category: deliberation]]
 
[[category: deliberation]]

Latest revision as of 03:31, 25 June 2014

Elements in deliberation are elemnts that influance the outcome of deliberation. They interact with each other to change the results of deliberation.

See also processes of deliberation

Participation

Socioeconomic status and participation

Some research showed that there is a positive corroloation between participation and socialeconomic status[1]. Others show small corroloation between status and SE[2]. Lindell found that the SE has modrate influance on participation. They found that in the top of SE people tended to participate less[3][4].

Age and Participation

Lindell, Karjalainen and Rapeli found that people at the at their 30th to their 50th, tennd to particpate less[5][6], probably because of lack of time, due to the intensety of theis period in life.

The size of the society and Participation

The larger the citizen body, the smaller the participation (according to Participation function and rational ignourence[7]). This is supported by Dahn on municipalty participating in voting[8]. The reason that citizens gave was the feeling of lack of influance[9]

Communication Elements

The oreder of talking

Synchronic or a synchronic

Social Queues information carried by the meduim

People needs social information, like body language, intonations and facial expressions to better understand each other. The more the medium can transfer social information, the better and faster the mutual understanding will be.Higher social queues can also elevate trust between participents[10]. Therefore face to face meetings will be better from video conferences and video conferences will be better the teleconferences, and they will be better than emails (emails will have an advantage in deliberation, because all the formers were synchronous mediums which slow down the pace of group talks, while emails are a synchronous).

Summery:

  • The more social queues a medium can carry
    • The better and faster participants will understand each other.
    • Higher social queues can also elevate trust between participents

Groups Size Elements

Summery:

  • The larger the group is:
    • The less time there is for indeviduals in synchronous mediums to give their opnions.
    • In a-sychronous medium there is less times to read each participent opinion.
    • The more potential wisdom there is in a group.
    • The harder it is to create SON.

Epistemic Elements

Priming

Priming helps participants to find related ideas and converge into agreed solution, while it may reduce the diversity of opinions.

Questions

RPE

Inter Perspective

Inter perspective promte wider undestanding. It helps to better undestand minorities and promote the RPE and Curiosty in some participents (usualy more liberals), while creating stress in others that may have high need for order and who do not like to explore.

Focal Point

In every phase of deliberation, different focal point is needed.

Focus on mutual undersanding

Focus on Social Objects

Focus on social objects can elevate understanding. In a synchronous medium, deliberation about Social Object can elevate their accuracy, and let millions talk simultaneously. Wikipedia and Google are such cases.

Focus on results

Understanding

In deliberation we need to find ways to elvate the understanding of participents. Graphic represntation, mutual questioning and story-telling are some of these ways.

Story Telling

Most people tend to best understand and remember by hearing stories. Story telling help participents better engage the topics in deliberation.

SON

SON

Creating SON

Depth of SON

How to bridge the laymen-experts gap?

Corroboaration of the SON

How to bridge the laymen-experts gap?

Psychological Elements

Fighting vs. Cooperating

FFFF vs. PFC

Exploring vs. Exploiting

Social Elements

Conformation bias

(which is related also to priming Also, the perceived honor of the speakers.

See also

Cooperation in 28 keywords - an ebook about elements in deliberation.

References

  1. ↑ Rothman, J. (1974). Planning and organizing for social change: Action principles from social science research. Columbia University Press New York.
  2. ↑ Salisbury, R. H. (1975). Research on political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 323–341.
  3. ↑ Karjalainen, M., & Rapeli, L. (2014). Who will not deliberate? Attrition in a multi-stage citizen deliberation experiment . Quality & Quantity
  4. ↑ Lindell, M. (2014). What Drives the Polarization and Moderation of Opinions? Evidence from a Finnish Citizen Experiment on Immigration. In ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops 2014, workshop “Systematising Comparison of Democratic Innovations: Advanced Explanations of the Emergence, Sustenance and Failure of Participatory Institutions”.
  5. ↑ Karjalainen, M., & Rapeli, L. (2014). Who will not deliberate? Attrition in a multi-stage citizen deliberation experiment . Quality & Quantity
  6. ↑ Lindell, M. (2014). What Drives the Polarization and Moderation of Opinions? Evidence from a Finnish Citizen Experiment on Immigration. In ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops 2014, workshop “Systematising Comparison of Democratic Innovations: Advanced Explanations of the Emergence, Sustenance and Failure of Participatory Institutions”.
  7. ↑ Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. The Journal of Political Economy, 135–150.
  8. ↑ אבי בן בסט ומומי דהן המשבר ברשויות המקומיות — יעילות מול ייצוגיות 37 )פרסומי המכון הישראלי לדמוקרטיה, 2008 (.
  9. ↑ יעל ישי "אזרחות עירונית בישראל: בין שיתוף לשותפות" מדינה וחברה 5, 985 ) 2005 (;אפרת וקסמן ודנה בלאנדר דגמים של שיתוף אזרחים )נייר־עמדה מס' 26 , המכון הישראלילדמוקרטיה, 2002 (.
  10. ↑ Bicchieri, C., Lev-On, A., & Chavez, A. (2010). The medium or the message? Communication relevance and richness in trust games. Synthese, 176(1), 125–147.
Retrieved from "http://www.delib.org/wiki/index.php?title=Elements_in_deliberation&oldid=1705"