|
|
| (11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | aspects of deliberation
| + | __TOC__ |
| | + | ==Definition of deliberation== |
| | | | |
| − | ==Deliberation Effects==
| + | 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. |
| | | | |
| − | 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>:
| + | Solutions are achieved by: |
| | + | * agreeing on the process of deliberation (also known as [[Munchausen Problem]]) |
| | + | * Working toward a common understanding of the relevant field of knowledge (Creation of corroborated [[SON]]) |
| | + | * 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. |
| | | | |
| − | 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).
| + | Deliberation is affected by the medium which is used during the process. It is also affected by social, cognitional, and emotional phenomena. |
| − | 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''
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==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===
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''[[Psychology settings for deliberation|main article]]'''
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====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]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Bias in deliberation==
| |
| − | ===Populations that avoids deliberation===
| |
| − | Prior studies typically suggest that low education, older age and male gender predict higher rates of nonresponse and attrition (cf. Fitzgerald et al. 1998; Uhrig 2008; Voogt and Kempen 2002). In one of the oldest panel surveys, the Michigan panel study of income
| |
| − | dynamics, those who drop out tend to have lower education and lower SES than those who stay in (Fitzgerald et al. 1998, p. 50). (Uhrig 2008, p. 20–47.)While the effect of low income proves to be the opposite in Britain versus the US, low education level predicts attrition in both contexts (ibid.). In longitudinal experimental research, on the other hand, high SES (social economic status) seems to have a negative relationship with attrition (Hooghe et al. 2010).... In DPs, especially highly educated and politically active participants
| |
| − | have been overrepresented (Farrar et al. 2010, p. 347).... it turned out that despite large efforts to recruit a representative sample of the population white, older, highly educated individuals and those working in jobs that require higher occupational skills were slightly overrepresented in the assembly (James 2008, p. 113)....Anyone planning a similar experiment should expect individuals in early middle-age to be most likely to drop out, probably because they are in a life situation where free time is very restricted. ... More importantly, however, our analysis showed that in a citizen deliberation event about immigration, anti-immigration opinions were slightly underrepresented. (and also, liberals that don't like to face opposite opinions, tended to come less (This means that most liberals do not care of being apposed). <ref>from: Who will not deliberate? Attrition in a multi-stage citizen deliberation experim... http://www.mendeley.com/c/6424560221/p/4991071/karjalainen-2014-who-will-not-deliberate-attrition-in-a-multi-stage-citizen-deliberation-experiment</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Distortions in Reason===
| |
| − | For unloigical and intutive reasoning, see [[decision making#Intuitive Decision Making|Intuitive Decision Making in "Decision Making"]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[hidden agenda]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===False Deliberation===
| |
| − | False deliberation is a deliberative event that is preconditioned and managed to reach predetermined results.
| |
| − | | |
| − | See an example in the movie [http://youtu.be/tPIctGbAZEQ conspiracy (2001)], that describe the Wannsee Conference.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Psychological considerations==
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[FFFF and deliberation]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Settings that promote system 2 discussion]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==methods of deliberation==
| |
| − | [[deliberative polls]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[online deliberation]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[National Issues Forum]]([[NIF]])
| |
| − | | |
| − | Charrette - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charrette Wikipedia], [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/public_involvement/publications/techniques/chapter00.cfm Department of transportation, USA], [https://medium.com/design-ux/build-a-shared-vision-with-collaborative-sketching-ddea120a38fe Methods.com]
| |
| − | ===Online Tools===
| |
| − | See [[online deliberation]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Elements in Deliberation==
| |
| − | See [[elements in deliberation]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Criticism on deliberation==
| |
| − | [[criticism on deliberation]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==See Also==
| |
| − | *[[Decision Making]]
| |
| − | *[[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.