Difference between revisions of "Gastil and Black framework"
From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki
(→References) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
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>. | 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>. | ||
| − | [[Gastil and Black | + | [[Gastil and Black framework]] gives four aspects of socilogy of deliberation: |
#All participants should have equal and adequate speaking opportunities. | #All participants should have equal and adequate speaking opportunities. | ||
#All participants should attempt to comprehend one another’s views. | #All participants should attempt to comprehend one another’s views. | ||
#All participants should make efforts to fully consider each other’s input. | #All participants should make efforts to fully consider each other’s input. | ||
#All participants should demonstrate respect for each other. | #All participants should demonstrate respect for each other. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Measuring Deliberation== | ||
| + | See "Content Analysis Procedures and Measures"(p.608)<ref>Black, L. W., Welser, H. T., Cosley, D., & DeGroot, J. M. (2011). self-governance through group discussion in Wikipedia: Measuring deliberation in online groups. Small Group Research, 1046496411406137.</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | <references/> | ||
[[Category: deliberation]] | [[Category: deliberation]] | ||
[[category:framework]] | [[category:framework]] | ||
| + | [[category: measurements]] | ||
Latest revision as of 02:55, 21 July 2014
Gastil and Black 2008 suggested five bulding blocks for deliberation[1]:
- 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[2][3].
Gastil and Black framework gives four aspects of socilogy of deliberation:
- All participants should have equal and adequate speaking opportunities.
- All participants should attempt to comprehend one another’s views.
- All participants should make efforts to fully consider each other’s input.
- All participants should demonstrate respect for each other.
Measuring Deliberation
See "Content Analysis Procedures and Measures"(p.608)[4]
References
- ↑ Gastil, J., & Black, L. W. (2008). Public deliberation as the organizing principle in political communication research. Journal of Public Deliberation, 4.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Black, L. W., Welser, H. T., Cosley, D., & DeGroot, J. M. (2011). self-governance through group discussion in Wikipedia: Measuring deliberation in online groups. Small Group Research, 1046496411406137.