Difference between revisions of "Elements in deliberation"
From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki
(→Age and Participation) |
|||
| (2 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== | ==Participation== | ||
| Line 10: | Line 12: | ||
===The size of the society and Participation=== | ===The size of the society and Participation=== | ||
| − | The larger the citizen body, the smaller the participation (according to [[ | + | 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> | 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> | ||
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
Contents
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
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
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
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
- ↑ Rothman, J. (1974). Planning and organizing for social change: Action principles from social science research. Columbia University Press New York.
- ↑ Salisbury, R. H. (1975). Research on political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 323–341.
- ↑ Karjalainen, M., & Rapeli, L. (2014). Who will not deliberate? Attrition in a multi-stage citizen deliberation experiment . Quality & Quantity
- ↑ 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”.
- ↑ Karjalainen, M., & Rapeli, L. (2014). Who will not deliberate? Attrition in a multi-stage citizen deliberation experiment . Quality & Quantity
- ↑ 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”.
- ↑ Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. The Journal of Political Economy, 135–150.
- ↑ אבי בן בסט ומומי דהן המשבר ברשויות המקומיות — יעילות מול ייצוגיות 37 )פרסומי המכון הישראלי לדמוקרטיה, 2008 (.
- ↑ 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 (.
- ↑ 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.