Deliberative Democracy: The Role of Educational Research in Educational Policy

Author(s):  
Jane Gaskell
AERA Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 233285841986934
Author(s):  
Bryan Mann ◽  
Andrew Saultz

Despite the strong relationship between geography and education policy, educational research tends to draw from other fields of inquiry such as economics, political science, and history. This special topics collection centers the usefulness of geography and place in educational policy research. The introduction explains the rationale for the collection and discusses the themes and articles in the collection. We conclude with a call for researchers, policy makers, and colleges of education to enhance their capacity in incorporating geographic thinking into educational policy research.


2013 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-23
Author(s):  
Natasa Vujisic-Zivkovic

The paper discusses the role of educational research in transforming educational policy and practice. Our aim was to critically illuminate the possibilities, range and limitation soft he evidence-based concept of education reform. This concept implies an intensive re-examination of the epistemology of educational science, with the emphasis on studying the causal and consequential relations in education. It demands methodological rigour in educational research, culminating in the random sample experiment. It is also perceived that there is the problem of systematic dissemination and application of the obtained scientific findings in educational practice. On the other hand, the critics of this concept have observed that it is neo-positivist, mono-methodological, since it favors quantitative research, and as such insufficient for explaining and understanding educational phenomena and the contexts in which educational innovations are studied. At the same time, during the last decade, there has been another reconsideration of the role of scientific in forming of practitioners in their everyday work, as well as of the relation between research and the development of educational policy. Finally, philosophers of education again insist on the moral instead of on instrumental nature of educational practice. Theoretical analysis of the concept of evidence-based transformation of education has been supplemented by an analysis of social and institutional conditions in which the modern science of education develops.


2019 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 209-218
Author(s):  
Lev E. Shaposhnikov

The paper analyses the evolution of Yu. Samarin’s ideas from rationalism to “holistic knowledge”. Special attention is paid to the philosopher’s conceptualization of the key role of religion for a nation. The author also examines the scholar’s position concerning the promotion of patriotism as an important impetus for social development. Emphasis is made on analyzing the interaction of universal and national aspects in the educational process, as well as on the value of national identity in the field of humanities. The article also presents Yu. Samarin’s critical evaluation of the government educational policy and his suggestions on increasing its effectiveness. The author notes the relevance of Yu. Samarin’s views for the contemporary philosophical and educational context.


2021 ◽  
pp. 147787852110171
Author(s):  
Kei Nishiyama

While the discussion on education for deliberative democracy is increasingly gaining prominence, there is a deep gap between the theories of deliberative democracy and democratic education with respect to what deliberative democracy is and ought to be. As a result, theories and practices of democratic education tend to be grounded in a narrow understanding of the meaning of deliberative competencies, students’ deliberative agency, and the role of schools in deliberative democracy. Drawing on the latest theorization of deliberative democracy – deliberative system theory – this article aims to question and revise these assumptions. The article suggests that meta-deliberation is a key practice that can reconcile the gap between the two theories.


2020 ◽  
pp. 019145372097472
Author(s):  
Cristina Lafont

In this essay, I address some questions and challenges brought about by the contributors to this special issue on my book ‘ Democracy without Shortcuts’. First, I clarify different aspects of my critique of deep pluralist conceptions of democracy to highlight the core incompatibilities with the participatory conception of deliberative democracy that I defend in the book. Second, I distinguish different senses of the concept of ‘blind deference’ that I use in the book to clarify several aspects and consequences of my critique of epistocratic conceptions of democracy and their search for ‘expertocratic shortcuts’. This in turn helps me briefly address the difficult question of the proper role of experts in a democracy. Third, I address potential uses of empowered minipublics that I did not discuss in the book and highlight some reasons to worry about their lack of accountability. This discussion in turn leads me to address the difficult question of which institutions are best suited to represent the transgenerational collective people who are supposed to own a constitutional project. Finally, I address some interesting suggestions for how to move the book’s project forward.


Author(s):  
Alfred Moore

What might a deliberative politics of science look like? This chapter addresses this question by bringing together science studies and the theories and practices of deliberative democracy. This chapter begins by discussing the importance of considering the role of deliberation within scientific communities and institutions, particularly as it bears on the production of scientific judgments and decisions at the boundary between science and politics. The chapter then discusses the emergence of institutions for communicating scientific knowledge to policy-makers, public officials and citizens, which include not only expert tribunals but also the development of citizen panels, consensus conferences, and other forms of mini-publics. Finally, the chapter considers the role of “uninvited” ’ participation in science, emphasizing the role of social movements and critical civil society in both challenging and informing scientific knowledge production.


2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 500-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrico Biale ◽  
Valeria Ottonelli

From within a “systemic approach” to deliberative democracy, political parties can be seen as crucial actors in facilitating deliberation, by playing epistemic, motivational, and justificatory functions that are central to the deliberative ideal. However, we point out that if we assume a purely outcome-oriented conception of the role of parties within a deliberative system, we risk losing sight of a central tenet of deliberative democracy and of its distinctive principle of legitimacy, namely, that citizens must be able to exercise critical reflection on the grounds of democratic decisions. We argue that parties have a special responsibility in making a deliberative system meet this requirement, and that such special role can be fulfilled only if parties’ programs, values, and strategies are shaped through intra-party deliberation. On the grounds of this discussion, we define a model of intra-party deliberation that is based on the principles of mutual acceptability, pluralism, and publicity.


2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 350-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Macleod

This paper offers a critical commentary on Mark Bevirʼs recent book A Theory of Governance from the perspective of normative political philosophy. It explores three ways in which Bevirʼs analysis can be brought into dialogue with political philosophy. First, it considers the role of generalizations in successful explanations of social phenomena. Second, it explores how a decentred theory of governance can help identify solutions to important social problems. Third, it explores the relation between Bevirʼs account of governance and theories of deliberative democracy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document