3,078
edits
Changes
→Layers of Coordination
====Indirect Measurments====
Studies using indirect measures assess deliberation based on either antecedents (for example, by measuring the extent to which conditions necessary for deliberation are met) or outcomes of the discussion (for example, by measuring post-deliberation changes in participants).
==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. 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==