|
|
| (184 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | <p style="font-size: 200%; line-height: 1.3">''Deliberative Democracy''</p> | + | <p style="font-size: 200%; line-height: 1.3">''On Deliberation</p> |
| − | <p style="font-size: 125%; line-height: 1.3">Theories of Knowledge, Psychology, Deliberation and Government</p> | + | <p style="font-size: 125%; line-height: 1.3">Theory and Practice in Deliberative Democracy</p> |
| | + | <p style="font-size: 170%; line-height: 1.5">By [[user:WinSysop|Tal Yaron]]</p> |
| | + | <br> |
| | | | |
| − | <br><br>
| + | ===Our Mission=== |
| − | The goal of this site is to create a wiki for deliberative democracy, aggregate scientific knowledge about deliberative democracy, and suggest a framework for the research and understanding of deliberation.
| + | 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. |
| − | | |
| − | ==Why do we need deliberation?== | |
| − | | |
| − | Deliberation may be the most important field of research humankind will engage in the 21th century. Deliberation is so important, because every group of people as small as a group composed of two people, like a couple, to groups as large as hounderds of milions, like states, needs to find solutions that will help their members prosper. To prosper, all groups have to arrive at the best solutions available in their current situation. Deliberation is a field of research that engages the ways people can work together, with corroborated knoweldge to pursuit the best solutions. If we will understand how to promote together the best solution through agreements, we will find ways to bring prosperity to wider population, and we may also bring more peace among nations.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | ==Why do we need a Framework for Deliberation==
| |
| − | The theory of deliberation has so far defied a strong connection with empirical research. One of the reason for that is the complexty of this field. The Public Deliberation research field is not an easy field for research. It includes the fields of political science, social interactions, individual psychology, interpersonal communication, the processing of knowledge and much more. In each of it's subfields there are many areas of intradisciplnary and interdisciplinary questions, each making the field more complex. This makes the research of deliberation highly complex. In order to make deliberation empirical, falsifiable theories of deliberation must be produced. Such theories which describes measurable elements and interactions of between elemnts,were produced in the last decade by several groups: steenberger et al 2003<ref>Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: a discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21–48.</ref>, stormer-Galley 2005<ref>Stromer-Galley, J., & Martinson, A. (2005). Conceptualizing and measuring coherence in online chat. In Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association.</ref>, bachtiger et al 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> and black and Gastil 2008<ref>Gastil, J., Black, L., & Moscovitz, K. (2008). Ideology, attitude change, and deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Political Communication, 25(1), 23–46.</ref>, yet these theories only answers partly to the phenomena we find in real world deliberation. Many aspects like the inadequaty of rationality, communication styles, storytelling, social interaction, communication methods, type of medium used and much more are not described by these theoris.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The current framework does not try to give a single description of deliberation, but rather aims at describing the building blocks of deliberation, and the ways to measure these building blocks. We will examine four areas that to our understanding construct the major elements of deliberation: knowledge, psychology, sociology and the structures and procedures which produce public decision making by deliberation. We then ask about the quality and democratic values of the decisions. We then examines several methods of deliberation used by practioners, and tries to describe the elements and the interactions the practitioners used. Based on these understanding, we hope to make measurements of deliberation more clear and to improve old practices and construct new advanced deliberation settings.
| |
| | | | |
| | + | <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> |
| | | | |
| | __TOC__ | | __TOC__ |
| | | | |
| − | ==Values of Deliberation== | + | ==Introduction== |
| − | ===Equal Participation===
| + | 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. |
| − | Deliberative theory underlies the notion of ‘strong democracy’ whereby representative institutions should be supplanted by more participatory ones in order to realise the principle of self-government<ref>Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref><ref>Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberative Democracy and Democratic Legitimacy, in A. Hamlin and P. Pettit (eds.) The Good Polity, Oxford: Blackwell,pp. 17–34.</ref><ref>Fishkin, J.S. (1991). Democracy and Deliberation, Yale: Yale University Press.</ref><ref>Barber, B.R. (1998). Three Scenarios for the Future of Technology and Strong Democracy, Political Science Quarterly 113(4): 573–590.</ref> | |
| − | ====Equal influance on Deliberation====
| |
| − | in many cases of online discussions there is a tedency of domination by a minority of people which is bias for deliberation<ref>Beierle, T. C. (2002). Democracy Online: An Evaluation of the National Dialogue on Public Involvement in EPA decision. RFF Report, Washington.</ref><ref>Davis R. (1999). The Web of Politics. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
| |
| − | Dumoulin,</ref><ref>Jankowski, N. & Van Selm M. (2000) The promise and Practice of Public Debate in Cyberspace. K. Hacker and J.A.G.M. Van Dijk, Eds. Digital Democracy: Issues of theory and practice. London: Sage.</ref><ref>Jankowski, N. W. and R. van Os (2002). Internet-based Political Discourse: A Case Study of Electronic Democracy in the City of Hoogeveen. Euricom Colloquium: Electronic Networks & Democracy. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: 17.</ref><ref>Jensen, J. L. (2003). Public Spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or Government- sponsored - A Comparison. Scandinavian Political Studies. 26: 349-374.
| |
| − | Kies</ref>.
| |
| − | | |
| − | =====Levels of Participation=====
| |
| − | See Robert Dahal....
| |
| − | | |
| − | =====Better informed participents=====
| |
| − | There are situations in which some citizens are simply better informed that justify an extended participation.
| |
| − | | |
| − | =====Decision Makers=====
| |
| − | In the case where politicians participate it is normal that the discussion tends to revolve around them, since it is a rare opportunity for participants at the forum to discuss directly with their representatives. The survey realized by Jankowsky and van Selm on the participants indicate that “Although debate appeared to be dominated by the few, participants appreciated the debate…”<ref>Jankowski, N. & Van Selm M. (2000) The promise and Practice of Public Debate in Cyberspace. K. Hacker and J.A.G.M. Van Dijk, Eds. Digital Democracy: Issues of theory and practice. London: Sage.</ref>.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Falsification===
| |
| − | [[falsification]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Ethic===
| |
| − | ====Rawls' Justice====
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Mill's Public Sphare Without private Sphare====
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===ROI===
| |
| − | ====Private ROI====
| |
| − | See Robert Dahal...
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Government Following===
| |
| − | ====following decisions====
| |
| − | Janssen and Kien defined Deliberation that has impacto on the goverment as "Major" and a disccusion that do no followed by action by the govenment as "minor"<ref>Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.(p.6)</ref>. For the forum to become major, Janssen and Kien suggest three mechanisms:
| |
| − | # '''visibility''' of the public space and therefore its potential political influence (i.e. the number of persons reading the messages). For example, one can think at the forum hosted by major newspapers such as the New York Times or Le Monde; ii)
| |
| − | # '''Aim''': There are for instance an increasing number of web-based discussion spaces - the e-consultation procedures - aiming at providing feedback on special issues; iii)
| |
| − | # '''status and power''': it can result from the status and the power of the people participating actively or even just passively (just reading) in the online debates. There are, for example, online discussion spaces where political representatives or high level civil servants participate. It is usually not a spontaneous participation, but a participation resulting from an explicit invitation of the organizers.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Massages in major deliberation, “citizenspace”, that was designed to enable citizens to enter into an interactive relationship with Government, had longer average massages then minor deliberation, e-consultation experience organized by the Hansard society on the Stem research. Coleman found that the major forum had an average of 345 words per massage, while the minor forum had average of 79 words per massage<ref>Coleman, S., Hall, N., & Howell, M. (2002). Hearing voices: the experience of online public consultations and discussions in UK governance. Hansard Society.</ref>. Janssen and Kies (2000), suggest that major spaces tend to be more respectful and constructive<ref>Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.</ref>.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Gravitating toward the power of decision makers====
| |
| − | In online discussion spaces where politicians are present, the discussion tends to revolve around them and much less around individual citizens<ref>Jankowski, N. & Van Selm M. (2000) The promise and Practice of Public Debate in Cyberspace. K. Hacker and J.A.G.M. Van Dijk, Eds. Digital Democracy: Issues of theory and practice. London: Sage.</ref>. In other words, the presence of politicians would have an impact on the flow of communication which could distract from the equilibrium and the fairness of the debate, and gravitate toward the power of decision makers.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In contexts where participants think that their voices can have an impact on decisions they are ready and willing to spend more time to elaborate and to justify their opinions.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====learning and changing decisions====
| |
| − | ====Basic Democratic settings====
| |
| − | Due to the need for the government to follow public decisions and also to make governmental knowledge transparent, an efficient government should be in place before deliberation can start. When government is corrupt and unable to follow easly public decision due to organization inefficiency, the public will will not be able to manifest itself on his birucracy. Officials will try to hold information from the public and organization inefficiency will cause projects decided by the people to disappear in the corridors of bureaucracy.
| |
| − | | |
| − | To achieve deliberative democracy, the people should pressure the government to be more efficient and more transparent.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Elements of Deliberation==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Experts on dialogue processes argue that deliberative forums should have at least two phases: one characterized by “divergence,” in which opinions,perspectives, and options proliferate; and a second phase characterized by “convergence,” in which participants come to conclusions, shared insights, and next steps<ref>[http://www.pioneersofchange.net Pioneers of Change Associates. (2006). Mapping dialogue. Johannesburg, South Africa:Pioneers of change].</ref><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><ref>McCoy, M.L., & P.L. Scully. (2002). Deliberative dialogue to expand civic engagement: What kind of talk does democracy need?” National Civic Review,92,117–35</ref>. The first phase is important not only for giving participants a better sense of the range of problems and possible solutions but also for generating the creativity that leads to innovative answers and the sociability that gives people a stake in making the process work. But it the second phase is equally important and is in some ways more difficult, more likely to provoke feelings of frustration and antagonism among participants.
| |
| − | | |
| − | For another frame of analyzing the bulding blocks of deliberation see [[Gastil and Black framework|Gastil and Black 2008]]<ref>[http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol4/iss1/art3 Gastil, J., & Black, L. W. (2008). Public deliberation as the organizing principle in political communication research. Journal of Public Deliberation, 4.]</ref>. They present five bulding blocks:
| |
| − | #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<ref>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.</ref><ref>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.</ref>.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In my hypothesis I add the ''synthesis'', ''cycle'', ''doing'', ''learning from doing'', which help create more delicate and group-wise decisions, and learn from exprience.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===The Question===
| |
| − | How to fulfil the changing needs of the people, is the beginning of the serach for solutions. The search can go through deliberation.
| |
| − | ===SON===
| |
| − | ====Why do We Need Social Knowledge in Deliberation====
| |
| − | | |
| − | Common Ground is defined as a prerequisite for mutual understanding in communication processes and it consists of shared information, mutual knowledge, mutual beliefs, and mutual assumptions<ref>Clark, H.H. and Carlson, T.B. (1982), “Hearers and speech acts”, Language, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 332-73</ref>. Building Common Ground is crucial for effective communication and collaborative work since it helps people converse and understand each other.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====What is Social Knowledge====
| |
| − | [[epistemology]], [[SON]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | Methods for creating social knowledge.Moving from [[MON]]s to [[SON]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | Methods for creating social knowledge in deliberation.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Falsification====
| |
| − | [[falsifiability]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Levels of Knowledge====
| |
| − | =====Refinement=====
| |
| − | In emotional neutral deliberation, people added links to online discussion to contribute to an accurate picture of the choices<ref>Polletta, F., Chen, P. C. B., & Anderson, C. (2008). Is information good for deliberation? Link-posting in an online forum. Journal of Public Deliberation, 5(1), 2.</ref>.
| |
| − | | |
| − | =====Experts Knowledge=====
| |
| − | | |
| − | =====Integration of Experts Knowledge with Laymen Knowledge=====
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Options===
| |
| − | | |
| − | WHAT IS AN [[option]]?
| |
| − | | |
| − | Methods for creating options
| |
| − | | |
| − | In emotional neutral online deliberation people used links to other sites to create more options<ref>Polletta, F., Chen, P. C. B., & Anderson, C. (2008). Is information good for deliberation? Link-posting in an online forum. Journal of Public Deliberation, 5(1), 2.</ref>.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Evaluating===
| |
| − | [[consequence]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[value]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Synthesizing===
| |
| − | [[synthesizing]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===The cycle of Creating SON, Creating Options, Evaluating and Synthsizing===
| |
| − | The cycle should enahnce the ability of the group to solve problem wisely. See [[Wisdom of the Multitude]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Selecting===
| |
| − | ===Doing===
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Learning From Experience===
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Psychology==
| |
| − | ===Self-Control===
| |
| − | ===From FFFF to PFC===
| |
| − | ====Flaming====
| |
| − | Defined by Alonzo and Aiken (2004: 205) as ‘hostile intentions characterized by words of profanity, obscenity, and insults that inflict harm to a person or an organization resulting from uninhibited behavior’<ref>Alonzo M, Aiken M (2004) Flaming in electronic communication. Decision Support Systems 36(3): 205–13 (p.208).</ref>. Flaming as an object of academic inquiry traces its origins to the pre-world wide web bulletin-board systems of the 1980s<ref>Lea M, O’Shea T, Fung P, and Spears R (1992) ‘Flaming’ in computer-mediated communication: Observations, explanations, implications. In: Lea M (ed.) Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication. New York: Harvester-Wheatsheaf, 89–112.</ref>.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Respect===
| |
| − | Janssen and Kies (2000), suggest that major spaces (government forums) tend to be more respectful and constructive<ref>Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.</ref>.
| |
| − | ===The Stupid-Evil Reaction===
| |
| − | Sometimes when there is a deep misunderstanding between participants, a mistrust my result. many times, the parties will evaluate the other as either stupid or evil.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Exploration and Exploitation Moods===
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Motivation and Inhibition in Deliberation===
| |
| − | ====Limited resources====
| |
| − | When people strugle to gain access to limited resouces, naturly, their motivation will grow. And also, as the amount of limited resources is grrater, the motivation will become greater. This is the reason, Churchill suggested that the number of seats in parliament will be smaller then the number of PMs. Jank and Kiel found out that people tend to write longer massages and gravitate toward decision makers, when politicians are participating an online discussion<ref>Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.</ref>.
| |
| − | | |
| − | On the other hand, if there is not enough space, the fight for the limited resources may become a [[FFFF|fight]] and skirmishes may arise, making the deliberation void.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====ROI====
| |
| − | See Robert Dahal
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Maslow's Pyramid of needs====
| |
| − | For every need in [[Maslow|Maslow's pyramid of needs]], there is an influance in motivation to deliberate.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In the physiological needs, people will use deliberation to direct more basic resources toward themselves (like money).
| |
| − | | |
| − | In Safety needs, people will use deliberation to understand complex phenoemnon and to make the public more orderd and safe. Here [[curiosity]] and [[TMT|terror managment]] will play signficant role.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In love and honor needs, people will try to achieve commun undestanding, respect and friendship.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In Honor needs, people will try to gain more honor from others, by beeing more informed or more power over decision making.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In Self-Fulfilment, people will use their special skills in knowledge contribute to the group.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====The Ego====
| |
| − | The Ego in deliberation, is the need to control. When one have strong desires to control, without self-control or the understanding that in order to conrol, you first have to listen and [[synthesis]] other views, she will avoid listtening to others, by thinking of them as bad or as stupid.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In this respect, when one is in cometition with others for control, he will try to show all their mistakes, and will strength her ideas. This may be the cause of the failuer of Eli Zeria, the Chif intelegence branch in the IDF to see the comming war with Egypt in October 1973<ref>Zvi Zamir, In open eyes, 2011, Zmora-Bitan ("בעיניים פקוחות: ראש המוסד מתריע: האם ישראל מקשיבה?", בהוצאת כנרת זמורה-ביתן דביר.)</ref>.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Trust===
| |
| − | Mebers in online groups has to acive trust<ref>Kuo, F., & Yu, C. (2009). An Exploratory Study of Trust Dynamics in Work-Oriented Virtual Teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 823–854.</ref><ref>Rico, R., Alcover, C.-M., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., & Gil, F. (2009). The joint relationships of communication behaviors and task interdependence on trust building and change in virtual project teams. Social Science Information, 48(2), 229–255.</ref>. The medium will change the trust level, when high social-information will elevate the trust levels<ref>Bicchieri, C., & Lev-On, A. (2007). Computer-mediated communication and cooperation in social dilemmas: an experimental analysis. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 6(2), 139–168.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Group Interactions==
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Spread of Information===
| |
| − | [[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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Social Capital===
| |
| − | Research shows that virtuals teams need to establish relational variables early in their formation in FtF meetings<ref>Poole, M. S., & Zhang, H. (2005). Virtual teams. The Handbook of Group Research and Practice, 363–385.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Culture===
| |
| − | Teams need to bulid bridges above diffrence in culture<ref>Olaniran, B. (2004). Computer-mediated communication in cross-cultural virtual teams. International & Intercultural Communication Annual, 27, 142-166.</ref><ref>Hardin, A. M., Fuller, M. A., & Davison, R. M. (2007). I know I can, but can we? Culture and efficacy beliefs in global virtual teams. Small Group Research, 38(1), 130–155.</ref><ref>Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(4), 0.</ref><ref>Rutkowski, A.-F., Saunders, C., Vogel, D., & Van Genuchten, M. (2007). �Is it already 4 am in your time zone?� Focus immersion and temporal dissociation in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 38(1), 98–129.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Managing Conflicts===
| |
| − | group need to manage conflicts<ref>Poole, M. S., & Zhang, H. (2005). Virtual teams. The Handbook of Group Research and Practice, 363–385.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Homogeneity and Heterogeneity===
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Homophily====
| |
| − | [[homophily]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Groups Conflict====
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[group polarization]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | Twitter and facebook are knowen to make debates more [[homophily|homophilies]]<ref>Himelboim, I., McCreery, S., & Smith, M. (2013). Birds of a Feather Tweet Together: Integrating Network and Content Analyses to Examine Cross-Ideology Exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(2), 40–60.</ref>. This a represntation of debate about the israeli(blue)-Palestinian (green) conflict in Gaza in 2014.
| |
| − | [[File:Gaza-Israel-Palestin-2014.png|400px|right|thumb|Produced by [http://giladlotan.com/ Gilad Lotan] - [http://www.vox.com/2014/8/7/5971759/chart-israel-palestine-polarized-twitter?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=voxdotcom&utm_content=thursday source: Vox] ]]
| |
| − | ====Groupthink====
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[groupthink]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | Social psychological research on group decisionmaking has shown that those with minority opinions are often pressured to agree with the majority opinion, no matter how illinformed<ref>Turner, J. C. (1991). Social Influence. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.</ref>; that high-status participants tend to be perceived as more accurate in their judgments even when they are not<ref>Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983).Inside the Jury. Cambridge: MA:Harvard University Press.</ref>; and that people tend to credit information they already know rather thaninformation they do not, even when indications are that the latter may be more accurate<ref>Larson, J. R., Foster
| |
| − | -
| |
| − | Fishman, P. G., & Franz, T. M. (1998). Leadership style and the discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups.
| |
| − | Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,24, 482-95.</ref><ref>Mendelberg, T. (2002). The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence.
| |
| − | Political Decisionmaking, Deliberation and Participation, 6, 151-193. (Overview)</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Experts and Laymen===
| |
| − | ==Medium==
| |
| − | [[CMC]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Settings that Effects Deliberation==
| |
| − | ===Settings===
| |
| − | ====Online Forum settings====
| |
| − | Online political and discussion spaces design choices can powerfully influence the nature of its users’ engagement<ref>Coleman S, Gøtze J (2001) Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation.London: Hansard Society.</ref><ref>Sack W (2005) Discourse architecture and very large-scale conversation. In: Latham R, Sassen S (eds) Digital Formations: IT and New Architectures in the Global Realm. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 242–82.</ref><ref>Suler J (2004) The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior7(3): 321–6.</ref><ref>Wright S, Street J (2007) Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums. New Media & Society 9(5): 849–69.</ref><ref>Liang, H. (2014). The Organizational Principles of Online Political Discussion: A Relational Event Stream Model for Analysis of Web Forum Deliberation. Human Communication Research.</ref>.
| |
| − | | |
| − | A better deliberation may be gained by Endorsing asynchronicity in online text-based discussions,Coleman and Gøtze<ref>Coleman S, Gøtze J (2001) Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation.London: Hansard Society. (p.17)</ref>, argue that ‘the best deliberative results are often achieved when messages are stored or archived and responded to after readers have had time to contemplate them’. Contrariwise, Fishkin et al.<ref>Fishkin JS, Iyengar S, and Luskin R (2005) Deliberative public opinion in presidential primaries: evidence from the online deliberative poll. Paper presented at the Voice and Citizenship conference, Seattle, WA, 22–24 April.(p.8)</ref> contend that asynchronous forums tend to be relatively low in ‘affective bonding and mutual understanding’. Wright and Street (2007) associate several technical affordances of online forums, including prior review moderation and threaded messages, with increased deliberation.
| |
| | | | |
| − | =====Anonymity=====
| + | 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. |
| − | Suler identifies anonymity and invisibility as key design features in the production of the ‘online disinhibition effect’, which is simply a tendency to speak and act with less restraint online than one would offline<ref>Suler J (2004) The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior7(3): 321–6.</ref>.
| |
| | | | |
| − | ====Topic====
| + | 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. |
| − | Hot vs. Cool
| |
| | | | |
| − | Hot topic will be one in which participents will have high stakes and the need for control will be high.
| + | 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]. |
| | | | |
| − | ===Participation=== | + | ==The Challenges== |
| − | ===Communication===
| + | 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. |
| | | | |
| − | ====Ease of communication==== | + | ===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]]). |
| | | | |
| − | [[File:Affordnce in communication media - Clarck and brennan -1991.gif|600px|center|thumb|Taken from Iandoli et al 2012<ref>Iandoli, L., Quinto, I., De Liddo, A., & Shum, S. B. (2012). A debate dashboard to enhance online knowledge sharing. VINE, 42(1), 67–93.</ref>]] | + | [[Deliberation|Read more...]] |
| | | | |
| − | ====Asynchronous vs. Real-time==== | + | ===Values of Deliberation=== |
| − | It is fundamental to distinguish the real-time discussion spaces (chat-rooms) from the asynchronous online discussion spaces that do not have time constraints (email list; newsgroups; Bulletin boards; forums). It is generally recognized that the former are spaces that attract 'small talk' and jokes, while the latter constitute a more favourable place for the appearance of some form of rational-critical form of debate. We suspect the different types of asynchronous forums to also have an impact on the deliberativeness of the forum, however we are aware of no specific empirical research that could confirm this belief<ref>Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2005). Online forums and deliberative democracy. Acta Pol{í}tica, 40(3), 317–335.(p.4)</ref>.
| + | 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. |
| | | | |
| − | ====Identification====
| + | [[Values of deliberative-democracy|Read more...]] |
| − | Some suggests that un-identification will make forum more open and therefore more reliable<ref>Dutton, W. H. (1996). Networks rules of order: regulating speech in public electronic fora. Media, Culture & Society. 18: 269-290.</ref>, while other think it will make the forums unreliable<ref>Maldonado T. (1997) Critica della ragione informatica. Milano, Feltrinelli.Monnoyer-Smith,</ref>
| |
| | | | |
| − | ====Restricted Participation==== | + | === Personal Criterion for selecting options === |
| − | Some spaces are restricted, while others are open to every body. The participation can influance the outcome of the deliberation. For instance, open deliberation without restrictions can drive a way experts. It may be better to assambel groups acording to a commun interest and level of knowledg. On the other hand, limiting access can cause [[groupthink]].
| + | 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. |
| | | | |
| − | ====Moderation====
| + | [[deliberation-action cycle]] |
| − | Modration style may influance the forums in many ways.
| |
| | | | |
| − | ====Agenda setting==== | + | ==The Elements== |
| − | The agenda setting of the debate can be ''decentralized'' (defined by participants), ''centralized'' (defined by organisers) or ''partly centralized'' (defined by both)<ref>Janssen, B. D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.(p.5)</ref>. | + | 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. |
| | | | |
| − | ====Topic-centerd vs People-centerd==== | + | ===The epistemic elements of decision making=== |
| − | Debates can also be organized around topics (eg. wikipedia) or around one or several political stakeholders(eg. blogs)<ref>Janssen, B. D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.(p.5)</ref>
| + | 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. |
| | | | |
| − | ===Learning===
| + | [[The epistemic elements of decision making|Read more...]] |
| | | | |
| − | ==Measuring the Qualety and Values of Decisions== | + | ===The Logical elements of decision making=== |
| | | | |
| − | See Woolley et al 2010<ref>Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science (New York, N.Y.), 330(6004), 686–8. doi:10.1126/science.1193147</ref>.
| + | 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. |
| | | | |
| − | ==How do We Build the Bulding Blocks?==
| + | [[The cognitive elements of decision making|read more...]] |
| − | In what order and how we should build the sequence of deliberation and the effects of discussion, such as being able to filter and choose the most legitimate option<ref>Landa, D. and Meirowitz, A. (2009). Game Theory, Information, and Deliberative Democracy, American Journal of Political Science 53(2): 427–444.</ref>
| |
| | | | |
| − | ===SON=== | + | ===Neuropsychology Elements in decision making=== |
| − | ====How do we learn====
| + | 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. |
| − | The importance of [[story telling]] and [[curiosity]] for learning.
| |
| | | | |
| − | ====How do we Integrate Different levels and areas of Knowledge?====
| + | [[neuropsychology elements in decision making|Read more]] |
| − | Experts-Laymen problem. Integrating Differnet areas of knowledge
| |
| − | ====How do we Falisify?====
| |
| | | | |
| − | ===Options=== | + | ===Psychological Elements in decision making=== |
| − | We can use [[priming]], or private investigation.
| + | [[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. |
| | | | |
| − | ===Evaluaiting===
| + | [[The group in decision making|Read more]] |
| − | ===Synthesizing===
| |
| − | ===Cycling===
| |
| − | ===Selecting===
| |
| | | | |
| − | ==Processes 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. |
| | | | |
| − | ===Minangkabau Deliberation===
| + | [[medium in decision making|Read more]] |
| − | [[Minangkabau Deliberation]] | |
| | | | |
| − | ===NIF=== | + | ===Organizational Elements in Decision Making=== |
| − | [[NIF]] is an abbreviation for [[National Issues Forum]] | + | [[Organizations in Decision Making]] |
| | | | |
| − | ===OST=== | + | ==Processes== |
| − | Open Space Technology
| + | [[General process of deliberation]] |
| | + | ===Face To Face=== |
| | + | ====Personal Decision Making==== |
| | + | [[system 1|system 1 decision making]] |
| | + | ====Group Deliberation==== |
| | + | [[Methods in deliberative democracy]] |
| | | | |
| − | ===dcCDM=== | + | ===Technologies of Deliberation=== |
| − | Diverging Converging Collective Decision Making
| + | [[Technologies for deliberation]] |
| | | | |
| − | ===NCTF=== | + | ==Concerns== |
| − | NCTF stand for ''"National Citizens’ Technology Forum"'' it is a kind of consensus forum derived from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_conferences consensus conference model] which was orignated from Denemark, in the United States. For review see this article<ref>[http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=jen_schneider&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.co.il%2Fscholar_url%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fworks.bepress.com%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1009%2526context%253Djen_schneider%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm3qiXTF6_4reVRr_o8ABsvPo_rS6A%26oi%3Dscholaralrt#search=%22http%3A%2F%2Fworks.bepress.com%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1009%26context%3Djen_schneider%22 Delborne, J., & Schneider, J. (2011). Moving Forward with Citizen Deliberation: Lessons and Inspiration from the National Citizens’ Technology Forum.]</ref>
| + | 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>. |
| | | | |
| − | ===Consensus conferences=== | + | ==See Also== |
| − | See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_conferences wikipedia].
| + | [[old main page]] |
| | | | |
| | ==References== | | ==References== |
| | <references/> | | <references/> |
| | | | |
| | + | [[category: general]] |
| | [[category: deliberation]] | | [[category: deliberation]] |
| | [[category:framework]] | | [[category:framework]] |
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.
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 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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.