scholarly journals Comment se construit le « concernement » des publics de la démocratie technique? Analyse communicationnelle des débats publics CNDP

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clément Mabi
Keyword(s):  
Public Involvement ◽  
Public Debate ◽  
Public Deliberation ◽  
National Commission ◽  
Scientific Debate ◽  
The Public ◽  
Débat Public

This article focusses on the construction of public involvement in the participatory procedures organized by France’s National Commission for Public Debate (CNDP). Particular attention is given to the enactment of the relation between the public and the object of techno-scientific debate. We posit that different publics are legitimized depending on how the organization of public deliberation problematizes the debated objects.Cet article traite de la construction du concernement des publics dans les procédures participatives organisées en France par la Commission nationale du débat public (CNDP), c’est-à-dire de la mise en forme du lien qui les relie à l’objet technoscientifique en débat. Nous postulons qu’en fonction de la manière dont l’objet du débat est problématisé par le dispositif, différents publics sont légitimés.

scholarly journals Chasing the Public: The CBC and the Debate Over Factual Entertainment on Canadian Airwaves

2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek Foster
Keyword(s):  
Reality Television ◽  
Public Debate ◽  
Reality Tv ◽  
The Public ◽  
Débat Public

Abstract: This article focuses on the public debate surrounding the CBC as it began to program reality TV. It highlights the tension between a public broadcaster’s popular programming and the expectations of a cultural nationalist public that seeks to hold the institution accountable. It argues for the existence of a “CBC effect” and questions whether the transnational format of reality television on Canada’s national broadcaster augurs changes in Canadian public culture.Résumé : Cet article porte sur le débat public entourant le CBC quand ce dernier a commencé à diffuser de la téléréalité. Il souligne la tension qu’engendre la programmation populiste d’un radiodiffuseur public à l’égard d’un public nationaliste qui s’attend à ce que celui-ci fasse des choix plus cultivés. L’article postule l’existence d’un « effet CBC » et se demande si le format transnational de la téléréalité telle qu’elle passe au radiodiffuseur national du Canada annonce des changements à venier dans la culture publique canadienne.

POLITICAL DELIBERATION UNDER CONDITIONS OF DECEPTION: THE CASE OF BREXIT

Think ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (44) ◽  
pp. 7-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Grace Chappell
Keyword(s):  
Public Debate ◽  
Public Deliberation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
Political Deliberation ◽  
The Eu

Individual deliberations under conditions of serious deception are generally agreed to be invalidated by that deception. So political deliberations under conditions of serious deception should also be agreed to be invalidated. The UK’s referendum on membership of the EU was a flawed process of public deliberation precisely for this reason – that the public debate about the referendum involved serious deception. I raise the question what should be done about such public deceptions, and suggest a restrained form of legal remedy.

The place of counter discourse in two methods of public deliberation

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-100
Author(s):  
Marianne Doury ◽  
Assimakis Tseronis
Keyword(s):  
Technology Policy ◽  
Consensus Conference ◽  
Public Deliberation ◽  
Institutional Constraints ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Argumentative Discourse ◽  
The Public ◽  
Political Sciences ◽  
The Social ◽  
Débat Public

In this paper, we examine two methods of public participation, namely consensus conference (conférence de citoyens) and public hearing (débat public). While both methods are used in order to involve the public in decision making about science and technology policy, they differ in a number of aspects. Consensus conference seeks the active participation of a selected group of citizens who are expected to elaborate cooperatively a text of recommendations. Public hearing seeks to inform the public and to collect as many reactions by it as possible. In our analysis, we consider the characteristics of these two methods described in the social and political sciences literature as institutional constraints that can play a role in the production of argumentative discourse. We focus our study on the discourse produced in two concrete instances of the application of these participatory methods on the deliberation over the development of nanotechnology in France. More specifically, we study the expression of counter discourse and seek to describe how the participants in the two deliberation processes end up managing the institutional constraints in order to have their criticisms expressed. In this way, we propose a bottom-up approach to the theorization of the role that institutional context plays in the practice of argumentation, and discuss the descriptive adequacy of existing definitions of the deliberative genre within argumentation studies.

scholarly journals France Speaks!

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 421-450
Author(s):  
Diego Palacios Cerezales
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Public Debate ◽  
The Public ◽  
Napoleon Bonaparte ◽  
De Se ◽  
Nineteenth Century France ◽  
The Government ◽  
Débat Public ◽  
Popular Mobilization

Abstract In 1851 more than 1.6 million signatures endorsed a petition for an amendment to the 1848 constitution that would have allowed Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte to stand for reelection. Following contemporary critics who claimed that the movement had been orchestrated by the government, scholars have been little impressed by this mobilization, which produced the largest petition of nineteenth-century France. By analyzing the petitions and the signatures themselves, official reports, correspondence of key actors, and the public debate, this article reappraises the campaign, making three claims: that a government-sponsored petition merits analysis in the context of the explosion of popular mobilization that followed 1848, that the depiction provided by the republicans of the participation of the administration in the campaign is partial and incomplete, and that the petitioners were not dependent and manipulated individuals but purposeful citizens who understood and supported the petition they signed. The article concludes that the campaign would not have succeeded without the genuine popularity of the president and the surfacing of a strong popular Bonapartist undercurrent. En 1851, des pétitions, rassemblant plus de 1,6 million de signatures, ont demandé une révision de la Constitution permettant à Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte de se porter candidat à un deuxième mandat présidentiel. Selon les républicains, le mouvement avait été orchestré et manipulé par le gouvernement, et les historiens ont aussi dédaigné cette mobilisation, alors qu'elle était la pétition la plus signée en France au dix-neuvième siècle. En analysant les pétitions et les signatures elles-mêmes, les rapports officiels, la correspondance des acteurs clés et le débat public, l'article réévalue cette campagne et propose trois arguments : (1) que les pétitions parrainées par le gouvernement font partie de l'histoire des mobilisations populaires ; (2) que l'image d'une administration toute-puissante mise au service de la campagne ne correspond pas à la réalité ; et enfin (3) que la plupart des pétitionnaires n'étaient pas des individus manipulés, mais des citoyens conscients du sens de leurs actions. La campagne n'aurait pas réussi sans l'expérience de la démocratie depuis 1848, la popularité du président et l'émergence d'un bonapartisme populaire.

The Priority of Public Reasons and Religious Forms of Life in Constitutional Democracies

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
Cristina Lafont
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Public Deliberation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Difficult Question ◽  
Political Deliberation ◽  
Forms Of Life ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
The Right ◽  
Mutual Accountability

In this essay I address the difficult question of how citizens with conflicting religious and secular views can fulfill the democratic obligation of justifying the imposition of coercive policies to others with reasons that they can also accept. After discussing the difficulties of proposals that either exclude religious beliefs from public deliberation or include them without any restrictions, I argue instead for a policy of mutual accountability that imposes the same deliberative rights and obligations on all democratic citizens. The main advantage of this proposal is that it recognizes the right of all democratic citizens to adopt their own cognitive stance (whether religious or secular) in political deliberation in the public sphere without giving up on the democratic obligation to provide reasons acceptable to everyone to justify coercive policies with which all citizens must comply.

The SORS Decision-Making Support System: A statistical tool for better policy making in the Republic of Serbia

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Miladin Kovačević ◽  
Katarina Stančić
Keyword(s):  
Policy Making ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Monitoring And Evaluation ◽  
Public Debate ◽  
Statistical Tool ◽  
The Public ◽  
System A ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Trusted Data

Modern society is witnessing a data revolution which necessarily entails changes to the overall behavior of citizens, governments and companies. This is a big challenge and an opportunity for National Statistics Offices (NSOs). Especially after the outbreak of COVID-19, when the public debate about the number of mortalities and tested and infected persons escalated, trusted data is required more than ever. Which data can modern society trust? Are modern societies being subjected to opinion rather than fact? This paper introduces a new statistical tool to facilitate policy-making based on trusted statistics. Using economic indicators to illustrate implementation, the new statistical tool is shown to be a flexible instrument for analysis, monitoring and evaluation of the economic situation in the Republic of Serbia. By taking a role in public policy management, the tool can be used to transform the NSO’s role in the statistical system into an active participant in public debate in contrast to the previous traditional, usually passive role of collecting, processing and publishing data. The tool supports the integration of statistics into public policies and connects the knowledge and expertise of official statisticians on one side with political decision makers on the other.

scholarly journals Strategies for involving patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives in health and social services: protocol for a scoping review and Delphi survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Ben Charif ◽  
◽  
Karine V. Plourde ◽  
Sabrina Guay-Bélanger ◽  
Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Services ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Scaling Up ◽  
Delphi Survey ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health And Social Services ◽  
Scoping Reviews

Abstract Background The scale-up of evidence-based innovations is required to reduce waste and inequities in health and social services (HSS). However, it often tends to be a top-down process initiated by policy makers, and the values of the intended beneficiaries are forgotten. Involving multiple stakeholders including patients and the public in the scaling-up process is thus essential but highly complex. We propose to identify relevant strategies for meaningfully and equitably involving patients and the public in the science and practice of scaling up in HSS. Methods We will adapt our overall method from the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Following this, we will perform a two-prong study design (knowledge synthesis and Delphi study) grounded in an integrated knowledge translation approach. This approach involves extensive participation of a network of stakeholders interested in patient and public involvement (PPI) in scaling up and a multidisciplinary steering committee. We will conduct a systematic scoping review following the methodology recommended in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers Manual. We will use the following eligibility criteria: (1) participants—any stakeholder involved in creating or testing a strategy for PPI; (2) intervention—any PPI strategy proposed for scaling-up initiatives; (3) comparator—no restriction; (4) outcomes: any process or outcome metrics related to PPI; and (5) setting—HSS. We will search electronic databases (e.g., Medline, Web of Science, Sociological Abstract) from inception onwards, hand search relevant websites, screen the reference lists of included records, and consult experts in the field. Two reviewers will independently select and extract eligible studies. We will summarize data quantitatively and qualitatively and report results using the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. We will conduct an online Delphi survey to achieve consensus on the relevant strategies for PPI in scaling-up initiatives in HSS. Participants will include stakeholders from low-, middle-, and high-income countries. We anticipate that three rounds will allow an acceptable degree of agreement on research priorities. Discussion Our findings will advance understanding of how to meaningfully and equitably involve patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives for sustainable HSS. Systematic review registration We registered this protocol with the Open Science Framework on August 19, 2020 (https://osf.io/zqpx7/).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document