Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Public Deliberation (public + deliberation)
Selected AbstractsGoogle Moderator, a New Tool for Public DeliberationASIAN POLITICS AND POLICY, Issue 1 2010Masahiro Matsuura [source] A Conceptual Definition and Theoretical Model of Public Deliberation in Small Face,to,Face GroupsCOMMUNICATION THEORY, Issue 4 2002Stephanie Burkhalter Although scholars have begun to study face,to,face deliberation on public issues, "deliberation" has no clear conceptual definition and only weak moorings in larger theories. To address these problems, this essay integrates diverse philosophical and empirical works to define deliberation and place it in a broader theoretical context. Public deliberation is a combination of careful problem analysis and an egalitarian process in which participants have adequate speaking opportunities and engage in attentive listening or dialogue that bridges divergent ways of speaking and knowing. Placed in the meta,theoretical framework of structuration theory (Giddens, 1984), deliberation is theorized to exist at the center of a homeostatic loop, in which deliberative practice reinforces itself. A review of theory and research on the causes and effects of deliberation leads us to develop this structurational conceptualization into the self,reinforcing model of deliberation. This model posits that public deliberation is more likely to occur when discussion participants perceive potential common ground, believe deliberation is an appropriate mode of talk, possess requisite analytic and communication skills, and have sufficient motivation. Deliberation directly reinforces participants' deliberative habits and skills, and it indirectly promotes common ground and motivation by broadening participants' public identities and heightening their sense of political efficacy. [source] The myth of the best argument: power, deliberation and reason1THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, Issue 1 2001Luigi Pellizzoni ABSTRACT Power in communication takes two main forms. As ,external' power, it consists in the ability to acknowledge or disregard a speaker or a discourse. As ,internal' power, it is the ability of an argument to eliminate other arguments by demonstrating its superiority. A positive or negative value may be ascribed to these forms of power. Four ideal-typical positions are discussed , strategy, technocracy, constructionism, and deliberation. Public deliberation has three virtues , civic virtue, governance virtue and cognitive virtue. Deliberation lowers the propensity to, and the benefit of, strategic behaviour. It also increases knowledge, enhancing the quality of decisions. For Habermas, the unity of reason is expressed in the possibility of agreement on the most convincing argument. However, sometimes conflicts are deeplying, principles and factual descriptions are profoundly different, and uncertainty is radical. The best argument cannot be found. There is no universal reason. The question is whether non-strategic agreement may spring from the incommensurability of languages. In search of an answer, Rawls's concept of overlapping consensus, the feminist theory of the public sphere, and the idea of deliberation as co-operation are discussed. The argument developed is that the approach to deliberative democracy may be renewed by rethinking its motivational and cognitive elements. Public deliberation is grounded on a pre-political level of co-operation. Intractable controversies may be faced at the level of practices, looking for local, contextual answers. [source] A Conceptual Definition and Theoretical Model of Public Deliberation in Small Face,to,Face GroupsCOMMUNICATION THEORY, Issue 4 2002Stephanie Burkhalter Although scholars have begun to study face,to,face deliberation on public issues, "deliberation" has no clear conceptual definition and only weak moorings in larger theories. To address these problems, this essay integrates diverse philosophical and empirical works to define deliberation and place it in a broader theoretical context. Public deliberation is a combination of careful problem analysis and an egalitarian process in which participants have adequate speaking opportunities and engage in attentive listening or dialogue that bridges divergent ways of speaking and knowing. Placed in the meta,theoretical framework of structuration theory (Giddens, 1984), deliberation is theorized to exist at the center of a homeostatic loop, in which deliberative practice reinforces itself. A review of theory and research on the causes and effects of deliberation leads us to develop this structurational conceptualization into the self,reinforcing model of deliberation. This model posits that public deliberation is more likely to occur when discussion participants perceive potential common ground, believe deliberation is an appropriate mode of talk, possess requisite analytic and communication skills, and have sufficient motivation. Deliberation directly reinforces participants' deliberative habits and skills, and it indirectly promotes common ground and motivation by broadening participants' public identities and heightening their sense of political efficacy. [source] Democratic Accountability and National Parliaments: Redefining the Impact of Parliamentary Scrutiny in EU AffairsEUROPEAN LAW JOURNAL, Issue 4 2007Katrin Auel Such an evaluation, however, is flawed: Formal mandating rights are usually incompatible with the overall logic of parliamentary systems, which explains why most national parliaments make very little use of them. Even more importantly, it unduly reduces parliamentary functions to the legislative or policy-making function. Drawing on agency theory, it will instead be argued that the functions of public deliberation and of holding the government publicly to account are at least as important and therefore need to be included in a redefined concept of parliamentary strength. In particular, the article proposes a distinction between two different elements of accountability,monitoring and political scrutiny,which recognises parliamentary majority and opposition as two distinct agents of the electorate. [source] Rhetorics of public scholarship: Democracy, Doxa, and the human barnyardNEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING & LEARNING, Issue 105 2006Rosa A. Eberly Drawing on ancient and contemporary connections between rhetoric,an art of public deliberation and communication,and democracy, this chapter argues for creating "a common space of public scholarship across and beyond disciplines" to help ensure the future of sustainable publics and participatory democracy. [source] Five Arguments for Deliberative DemocracyPOLITICAL STUDIES, Issue 5 2000Maeve Cooke Five arguments in favour of deliberative democracy are considered. These focus on its educative power, on its community-generating power, on the fairness of the procedure of public deliberation, on the epistemic quality of its outcomes and on the congruence of the deliberative democratic ideal ,with whom we are'. The first four arguments are shown to be inadequate. The fifth argument, it is claimed, not only provides the most convincing defence of deliberative democracy but can also be used to decide rationally between competing interpretations of the deliberative ideal. By way of illustration, the essay concludes with a critical discussion of the rival versions proposed by Rawls and Habermas. [source] Green Constitutionalism: The Constitutional Protection of Future GenerationsRATIO JURIS, Issue 3 2007KRISTIAN SKAGEN EKELI The proposal I wish to elaborate can be termed the posterity provision, and it has both substantive and procedural elements. The aim of this constitutional provision is twofold. The first is to encourage state authorities to make more future-oriented deliberations and decisions. The second is to create more public awareness and improve the process of public deliberation about issues affecting near and remote future generations. It is argued that a good case can be made for the proposed reforms compared with alternative substantive constitutional environmental provisions found in existing constitutions and in the literature on legal and political theory. The main reason for this is that the proposed law constitutes a better and more adequate basis for judicial enforcement than the alternatives, which tend to be very vague or unclear. In this connection, I contend that there are both epistemological and moral reasons for introducing constitutional provisions that focus on the protection of critical natural resources essential for meeting the basic physiological needs of future people. It is also argued that the posterity provision can be defended on the basis of central ideas and ideals in recent theory of deliberative democracy. [source] Invention and Public Dialogue: Lessons from Rhetorical TheoriesCOMMUNICATION THEORY, Issue 1 2008Nola J. Heidlebaugh Although the dialogical nature of publics and public deliberation has been acknowledged frequently in recent years, several scholars have challenged the viability of dialogue as an instrument of public deliberation. This study discusses some of those challenges and examines a form of invention drawn from sophistic rhetoric for its potential to contribute to the theory and practice of facilitated dialogue on public issues. An extended illustration is drawn from an actual multilogue on a public issue. Résumé Invention et dialogue public: Leçons des théories rhétoriques Bien que la nature dialogique des publics et de la délibération publique ait fréquemment été reconnue au cours des dernières années, plusieurs chercheurs ont mis en doute la viabilité du dialogue comme instrument de délibération publique. Cette étude commente certains de ces défis et examine une forme d,invention tirée de la rhétorique sophiste pour son potentiel à contribuer à la théorie et la pratique du dialogue facilité sur des questions publiques. Une longue illustration est tirée d'un réel multilogue autour d'un enjeu public. Abstract Erfindung und öffentlicher Dialog: Lektionen der Rhetoriktheorien Auch wenn die dialogische Natur von Öffentlichkeiten und öffentlicher Deliberation in den vergangenen Jahren häufiger anerkannt wurde, zweifeln einige Wissenschaftler die Brauchbarkeit des Dialogs als ein Instrument der öffentlichen Deliberation an. Diese Studie diskutiert einige dieser Zweifel und untersucht eine aus der Rhetorik der Sophisten abgeleitete Form der Intervention auf ihren Beitrag zu Theorie und Praxis eines förderlichem Dialog in öffentlichen Fragen. Ein realer Multilog zu einer öffentlichen Frage dient der Illustration. Resumen La Invención y el Diálogo Público: Las Lecciones de las Teorías Retóricas Aún cuando la naturaleza dialógica de los públicos y la deliberación pública han sido admitidas frecuentemente en años recientes, varios estudiosos han desafiado la viabilidad del diálogo como un instrumento de la deliberación pública. Este estudio discute algunos de esos desafíos y examina una forma de invención tomada de la retórica sofista por su potencial para contribuir a la teoría y práctica de diálogo facilitado sobre asuntos públicos. Una ilustración extensiva es tomada de un multi-diálogo de un asunto público actual. ZhaiYao [source] A Conceptual Definition and Theoretical Model of Public Deliberation in Small Face,to,Face GroupsCOMMUNICATION THEORY, Issue 4 2002Stephanie Burkhalter Although scholars have begun to study face,to,face deliberation on public issues, "deliberation" has no clear conceptual definition and only weak moorings in larger theories. To address these problems, this essay integrates diverse philosophical and empirical works to define deliberation and place it in a broader theoretical context. Public deliberation is a combination of careful problem analysis and an egalitarian process in which participants have adequate speaking opportunities and engage in attentive listening or dialogue that bridges divergent ways of speaking and knowing. Placed in the meta,theoretical framework of structuration theory (Giddens, 1984), deliberation is theorized to exist at the center of a homeostatic loop, in which deliberative practice reinforces itself. A review of theory and research on the causes and effects of deliberation leads us to develop this structurational conceptualization into the self,reinforcing model of deliberation. This model posits that public deliberation is more likely to occur when discussion participants perceive potential common ground, believe deliberation is an appropriate mode of talk, possess requisite analytic and communication skills, and have sufficient motivation. Deliberation directly reinforces participants' deliberative habits and skills, and it indirectly promotes common ground and motivation by broadening participants' public identities and heightening their sense of political efficacy. [source] Democratic Deficits of a Dualist Deliberative Constitutionalism: Bruce Ackerman and Jürgen HabermasRATIO JURIS, Issue 3 2005MARIELA VARGOVA It argues that Ackerman's version of democratic dualism sets strict normative distinctions between constitutional and ordinary political deliberations. As a result, it ignores everyday political processes and citizens' ordinary public deliberations and is unresponsive to ongoing social changes in a liberal pluralist society. On the other hand, Habermas's discursive constitution defends a dynamic relationship between constitutional and ordinary politics. It provides a better model of a continuous constitutional development that is more open to new social and historical circumstances. [source] Television Characterizations of Homeless People in the United KingdomANALYSES OF SOCIAL ISSUES & PUBLIC POLICY, Issue 1 2005Darrin Hodgetts Media link events in society into meaningful plotlines for public consumption. For social issues such as homelessness this storytelling process continues until an issue is resolved or another concern takes precedence. This article investigates British Independent Television News1 (ITN) portrayals of homelessness from January 1993 to December 2002 (n= 99). News items are explored as instalments in a larger news narrative through which the public is offered engagements with homeless characters. A quantitative content analysis was used to establish the general prevalence of items throughout the year, story locations, causes and solutions offered for homelessness, and character roles. A qualitative narrative analysis was used to explore the function of these story elements in the overall patterning of the ITN story of homelessness. Of particular note was the promotion of a philanthropic approach to service delivery through the characterization of homeless people as needy victims and the maintenance of estranged relationships between the viewing public and homeless people. The significance of ITN's exclusion of homeless people from public deliberations regarding their needs is discussed in relation to the failure of this wealthy nation to resolve homelessness. [source] | |||||||||||||