3,078
edits
Changes
no edit summary
It seems that participents can learn very easly by hearing stories<ref>Polletta, F., & Lee, J. (2006). Is telling stories good for democracy? Rhetoric in public deliberation after 9/11. American Sociological Review, 71(5), 699–721.</ref>, and it is used naturaly by participents<ref>Dutwin, D. J. (2002). Can people talk politics? A study of deliberative democracy.</ref>
One example of a discourse analytic approach to deliberation is Black’s (2006)<ref>Black, L. W. (2006). Deliberation, difference, and the story: How storytelling manages identity and conflict in deliberative groups. University of Washington.</ref> investigation into how deliberative group members tell and respond to personal stories during disagreements. Black qualitatively analyzed the communication of two groups involved in an online deliberative forum to explore and describe interactive patterns related to storytelling, collective identity, and conflict. She discerned four distinct types of stories, each with a different discursive function. She posited that the different types of stories drew on different ideas about the storyteller’s identity and connection to the group, and that group members use of different types of stories would likely lead to different conflict management strategies.
==References==