Deliberative Theory for Re-Focusing the Concept, Measurement, and Analysis of Substantive Reasons in Political Discussions

IF 1.2 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Rousiley C. M. Maia, Tariq Choucair, Gabriella Hauber, Leonardo Santa Inês
{"title":"Deliberative Theory for Re-Focusing the Concept, Measurement, and Analysis of Substantive Reasons in Political Discussions","authors":"Rousiley C. M. Maia,&nbsp;Tariq Choucair,&nbsp;Gabriella Hauber,&nbsp;Leonardo Santa Inês","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12795","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Based on theories of deliberative democracy, this article explores the substantive content of reasons as a conceptual tool. Although most studies focus on procedural dimensions, we argue that identifying and mapping substantive reasons contributes to advancing empirical investigation in a theoretically informed and normatively relevant way. More precisely, using a typology of reasons contributes to: (i) systematically tracking agreements and disagreements on controversial political issues and better understanding the complexities of political judgments, in a more nuanced and quantifiable description; (ii) deal with some contemporary methodological challenges to understand reciprocity and reflexivity; and (iii) explore disrespectful and undemocratic commitments in argumentation. In this context, we draw implications for broadening research at a macro-level or systemic analysis. To elucidate the practical feasibility of the proposed measure, we offer examples of operationalization in different research designs and ways of engaging in rich and historically based explanations.</p>","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"32 3","pages":"503-516"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8675.12795","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8675.12795","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Based on theories of deliberative democracy, this article explores the substantive content of reasons as a conceptual tool. Although most studies focus on procedural dimensions, we argue that identifying and mapping substantive reasons contributes to advancing empirical investigation in a theoretically informed and normatively relevant way. More precisely, using a typology of reasons contributes to: (i) systematically tracking agreements and disagreements on controversial political issues and better understanding the complexities of political judgments, in a more nuanced and quantifiable description; (ii) deal with some contemporary methodological challenges to understand reciprocity and reflexivity; and (iii) explore disrespectful and undemocratic commitments in argumentation. In this context, we draw implications for broadening research at a macro-level or systemic analysis. To elucidate the practical feasibility of the proposed measure, we offer examples of operationalization in different research designs and ways of engaging in rich and historically based explanations.

重新聚焦政治讨论中实质原因的概念、衡量和分析的协商理论
本文以协商民主理论为基础,探讨作为概念工具的理性的实质内容。尽管大多数研究都集中在程序维度上,但我们认为,识别和绘制实质性原因有助于以理论上知情和规范相关的方式推进实证调查。更准确地说,使用原因类型学有助于:(i)系统地跟踪有争议的政治问题上的协议和分歧,并以更细微和可量化的描述更好地理解政治判断的复杂性;(ii)应对一些当代方法论挑战,以理解互惠性和反身性;(三)探讨辩论中不尊重和不民主的承诺。在此背景下,我们提出了在宏观层面或系统分析上扩大研究的启示。为了阐明所提出的措施的实际可行性,我们提供了不同研究设计和参与丰富和基于历史的解释方式的操作化示例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信