发布求助
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献

Journal of Public Deliberation最新文献

筛选
英文 中文
Review of The Origins of Collective Decision Making by Andy Blunden (Boston: Brill, 2016) 评安迪-布伦登著《集体决策的起源》（波士顿：布里尔出版社，2016年）
Journal of Public Deliberation Pub Date : 2019-04-23 DOI: 10.16997/JDD.323
T. Shaffer
{"title":"Review of The Origins of Collective Decision Making by Andy Blunden (Boston: Brill, 2016)","authors":"T. Shaffer","doi":"10.16997/JDD.323","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.16997/JDD.323","url":null,"abstract":"Review of The Origins of Collective Decision Making by Andy Blunden (Boston: Brill, 2016). Author Biography Timothy J. Shaffer is an associate editor for the Journal of Public Deliberation and an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Kansas State University, assistant director of the Institute for Civic Discourse and Democracy, and Principal Research Specialist at the National Institute for Civil Discourse. His research centers on the advancement of democratic practices through deliberative politics and civic engagement in higher education and other institutional and community settings. He received his Ph.D. from Cornell University.","PeriodicalId":147188,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Deliberation","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126339591","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Building a Better Referendum: Linking Mini-Publics and Mass Publics in Popular Votes 构建更好的全民公决:将全民投票中的微型公众和大众公众联系起来
Journal of Public Deliberation Pub Date : 2019-04-23 DOI: 10.16997/JDD.319
Spencer McKay
{"title":"Building a Better Referendum: Linking Mini-Publics and Mass Publics in Popular Votes","authors":"Spencer McKay","doi":"10.16997/JDD.319","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.16997/JDD.319","url":null,"abstract":"Popular votes and mini-publics are both increasingly implemented as elected officials seek to build legitimacy for decisions, although these democratic innovations suffer from their own democratic deficits. Popular votes often do not live up to deliberative ideals while mini-publics may be limited in their capacities for inclusion and decision-making. Pairing these two devices can improve deliberation in referendum campaigns, while tying mini-publics to a clear and inclusive process for decision-making. Empirical studies of this strategy have found both successes and shortcomings. Little attention has been given to the possibility that the success of mini-publics in influencing public opinion is determined, in part, by the underlying design of the popular vote process. I outline how multi-stage popular votes could institutionalize an iterated dialogue between the micro-level mini-public and the mass, voting public to produce distinct democratic benefits. This serves as a model of how a systems approach to democratic theory can guide institutional design to address democratic functions of empowered inclusion, collective agenda and will formation, and collective decision-making.","PeriodicalId":147188,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Deliberation","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120976113","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8
Deliberation for Development: Ghana’s First Deliberative Poll 审议促进发展:加纳第一次审议投票
Journal of Public Deliberation Pub Date : 2019-04-23 DOI: 10.16997/JDD.314
D. Chirawurah, James S. Fishkin, N. Santuah, Alice Siu, A. Bawah, G. Kranjac-Berisavljevic, Kathleen Giles
{"title":"Deliberation for Development: Ghana’s First Deliberative Poll","authors":"D. Chirawurah, James S. Fishkin, N. Santuah, Alice Siu, A. Bawah, G. Kranjac-Berisavljevic, Kathleen Giles","doi":"10.16997/JDD.314","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.16997/JDD.314","url":null,"abstract":"This article poses the problem of public consultation in developing countries and applies a solution in Ghana as a test case. It describes the theoretical rationale for deliberative consultation with random samples, describes specific criteria for success, and then assesses an application under the challenging conditions of a developing country. It builds on notions of “deliberative democracy,” and shows how they can be practically realized in an African context through “Deliberative Polling” (DP). The challenge is that the context is one of the poorest parts of one of the poorest countries in Africa. Rather than consulting just stakeholders, or self-selected populations, or using conventional surveys, DP’s have the advantage of consulting random samples with deliberation in depth in confidential surveys so that the opinion changes can be evaluated at the individual level, free of social pressures for consensus. Is this practical in this context? A DP was conducted in Tamale, Ghana on issues of water, sanitation, hygiene and food security. Criteria for success for DPs that have been applied in highly developed countries are discussed and then applied in Ghana under challenging conditions.","PeriodicalId":147188,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Deliberation","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126798233","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14
Looking Back, Thinking Ahead: Reflections on our Five Years as Editors of the Journal of Public Deliberation 回顾过去，思考未来:《公共审议杂志》编辑五年的思考
Journal of Public Deliberation Pub Date : 2019-04-23 DOI: 10.16997/JDD.312
L. Black, T. Shaffer, N. Thomas
{"title":"Looking Back, Thinking Ahead: Reflections on our Five Years as Editors of the Journal of Public Deliberation","authors":"L. Black, T. Shaffer, N. Thomas","doi":"10.16997/JDD.312","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.16997/JDD.312","url":null,"abstract":"For the last five years, we have had the honor of serving as editors of the Journal of Public Deliberation. This issue marks the end of our editorial tenure, and we take this opportunity to both look back and think ahead. In this brief essay, we reflect on what we’ve seen during our time as editors. We begin by describing three important special issues that reflect the state of our field, then provide some details about how we have facilitated JPD’s growth over the past five years, including publication statistics and article download rates. We conclude by discussing where the journal is now and what we anticipate for its future.","PeriodicalId":147188,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Deliberation","volume":"92 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113980945","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Deliberation after Consensus: Introduction to the Symposium 协商一致后的审议:研讨会导言
Journal of Public Deliberation Pub Date : 2019-04-23 DOI: 10.16997/JDD.325
Henrik Friberg-Fernros, J. Schaffer, Cathrine Holst
{"title":"Deliberation after Consensus: Introduction to the Symposium","authors":"Henrik Friberg-Fernros, J. Schaffer, Cathrine Holst","doi":"10.16997/JDD.325","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.16997/JDD.325","url":null,"abstract":"This editorial introduction presents an overview of the themes explored in the symposium on Deliberation after Consensus. For all the talk of its obsolescence and irrelevance, the concept of consensus still remains centrally contested through generations of deliberative democracy scholarship. In face of criticism for being neither empirically feasible nor normatively desirable, some deliberative theorists have moved away from consensus-oriented teleology and argued in favor of other legitimate outcomes of deliberations. Other theorists have resisted this move, claiming that the aim of deliberation implies that consensus should remain as a regulative ideal for deliberative outcomes. Engaging with these debates about the role of consensus in theories of deliberative democracy, this symposium brings together a selection of innovative, original research articles that raise novel questions about the role consensus could and should play in democratic deliberation and in a deliberative democracy. This introduction offers an overview of the debate over consensus drawing on the notion of successive generations of deliberative democracy research. Our aim is to demonstrate that the view of consensus has changed during generations of deliberative scholarships, but also that some scholars still defend the normative importance of the meaning of consensus once developed by the first generation. Consequently, there are tendencies of both change and continuity in the debate over consensus in deliberative theory. We conclude this introduction by providing a brief synopsis of each paper.","PeriodicalId":147188,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Deliberation","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127781796","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
Completely Theorized Agreements. A Different Reading of the Consensus Paradox Hypotheses 完全理论化的协议。共识悖论假说的不同解读
Journal of Public Deliberation Pub Date : 2019-04-23 DOI: 10.16997/JDD.327
M. Wojciechowska
{"title":"Completely Theorized Agreements. A Different Reading of the Consensus Paradox Hypotheses","authors":"M. Wojciechowska","doi":"10.16997/JDD.327","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.16997/JDD.327","url":null,"abstract":"This article contributes to the debate on the consensus and deliberation. While the relevant literature claims that consensus undermines further deliberation, this article argues that it depends on the aim of the process. In particular, I argue that if the aim of deliberation is understood as reaching a certain epistemic level, reaching consensus does not need to decrease the rationality of the group. In short, such deliberation is a process of debate, reason-giving and listening which aims at establishing a result of certain epistemic value. In order to shed new light on the debates on the consequences of consensus for further deliberation, I introduce a detailed conceptualization of a full agreement. I call it Completely Theorized Agreements. In this article, I argue that reaching consensus in an epistemic setting does not need to have negative consequences. Further, I argue, that the truth-tracking quality of deliberation need not be worse in a group that reached a full consensus as opposed to a partial one. Author Biography Marta Wojciechowska is a Fellow at LSE100 and a PhD Candidate at the London School of Economics.","PeriodicalId":147188,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Deliberation","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127141547","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
With Habermas against Habermas. Deliberation without Consensus 哈贝马斯对哈贝马斯。未经协商一致的审议
Journal of Public Deliberation Pub Date : 2019-04-23 DOI: 10.16997/JDD.326
K. Jezierska
{"title":"With Habermas against Habermas. Deliberation without Consensus","authors":"K. Jezierska","doi":"10.16997/JDD.326","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.16997/JDD.326","url":null,"abstract":"Habermas’s conception of deliberative democracy combines two concepts—deliberation and consensus—which, I argue, draw his theory in two opposite directions. While deliberation and the focus on communication can be read as a predominantly open element of his theory, consensus stands for closure. The process of deliberation contrasts Habermas’s normative aim of deliberation, i.e., consensus. In other words, a realized consensus (in the strong, monologic formulation that Habermas favors) would put an end to the idea of continuous public justification of validity claims, i.e., deliberation. The article argues that in order to fully use the potential of deliberation in politics, we should leave behind the notion of consensus through deliberation. Instead, understanding should be the telos of deliberation, and voting after deliberation is put forth as the optimal institutional design for decision-making settings.","PeriodicalId":147188,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Deliberation","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131367435","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11
The Difference in Design: Participatory Budgeting in Brazil and the United States 设计上的差异:巴西和美国的参与式预算
Journal of Public Deliberation Pub Date : 2019-04-23 DOI: 10.16997/JDD.318
H. Gilman, Brian Wampler
{"title":"The Difference in Design: Participatory Budgeting in Brazil and the United States","authors":"H. Gilman, Brian Wampler","doi":"10.16997/JDD.318","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.16997/JDD.318","url":null,"abstract":"Participatory Budgeting (PB) is conceptually powerful because it ties the normative values of non-elite participation and deliberation to specific policymaking processes. It is a democratic policymaking process that enables citizens to allocate public monies. PB has spread globally, coming to the United States in 2009. Our analysis shows that the types of institutional designs used in the United States are quite different from the original Brazilian programs. What explains the variation in PB institutional design between Brazil and the United States? Most PB cases in the US are district-level whereas in Brazil, PB cases are mainly municipal. We account for this variation by analyzing the electoral system; configuration of civil society; political moment of adoption; and available resources. We use case study analysis to account for this variation in institutional design. We then assess how the different rule design is likely to create a different set of institutional outcomes.","PeriodicalId":147188,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Deliberation","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131811143","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10
Review of Deliberation in the Classroom: Fostering Critical Thinking, Community, and Citizenship in Schools by Stacie Molnar-Main (Kettering Foundation Press, 2017) 《课堂审议:在学校培养批判性思维、社区和公民意识》，作者:Stacie molna - main(凯特林基金会出版社，2017)
Journal of Public Deliberation Pub Date : 2019-04-23 DOI: 10.16997/JDD.324
M. L. Reeves
{"title":"Review of Deliberation in the Classroom: Fostering Critical Thinking, Community, and Citizenship in Schools by Stacie Molnar-Main (Kettering Foundation Press, 2017)","authors":"M. L. Reeves","doi":"10.16997/JDD.324","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.16997/JDD.324","url":null,"abstract":"Review of Deliberation in the Classroom: Fostering Critical Thinking, Community, and Citizenship in Schools by Stacie Molnar-Main (Kettering Foundation Press, 2017).","PeriodicalId":147188,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Deliberation","volume":"35 12","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114103563","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Integrative Democracy: Mary Parker Follett’s Integration and Deliberative Democracy 整合民主:玛丽·帕克·福莱特的整合与协商民主
Journal of Public Deliberation Pub Date : 2019-04-23 DOI: 10.16997/JDD.315
G. Wright
{"title":"Integrative Democracy: Mary Parker Follett’s Integration and Deliberative Democracy","authors":"G. Wright","doi":"10.16997/JDD.315","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.16997/JDD.315","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in the work of Mary Parker Follett by scholars of management and public administration, but the acute relevance of Follett’s work to deliberative democracy has yet to be fully appreciated. In her 1918 work The New State Follett articulates a normative political theory that I refer to as Integrative democracy, which can be seen as an alternative formulation of deliberative democracy that is based on an activity that Follett refers to as integration rather than deliberation. In this paper I first present two contemporary challenges faced by deliberative democrats: how deliberation itself ought to be defined, and whether or not deliberation produces epistemic benefits in comparison to non-deliberative voting. I then show how Follett’s theory is able to respond to both of these criticisms. Finally, I discuss how Follett’s theory may need to be extended or modified to deal with challenges highlighted by the recent systemic turn in deliberative theory.","PeriodicalId":147188,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Deliberation","volume":"78 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123839626","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
首页 上一页 下一页 尾页
0
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
相关产品
×
本文献相关产品
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