Do Hostile Media Perceptions Constrain Minipublics? A Study of How Oregon Voters Perceive Citizens' Statements

The deliberative quality of a minipublic often depends on its ability to inform the opinions of a larger public. The Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) aims to do so by producing a Citizens’ Statement, which we conceptualize as a deliberative form of mass media. Like any mass media, this Statement can only influence public opinion to the extent that citizens consider it unbiased and credible. Hostile media perceptions often prevent favorable evaluations of media content, but no prior work has considered whether these perceptions could undermine the output of deliberative minipublics. To examine that possibility, we analyze online survey data on Oregon voters’ assessments of two 2014 Citizens’ Statements. Results showed that voters’ evaluations of the Statements were unaffected by hostile media perceptions. Assessments were more favorable when voters had confidence in their knowledge of the CIR’s design, process, and participants. Evaluations also were more favorable for those voters with greater faith in deliberation’s capacity to render considered judgments. We elaborate on these findings in our discussion section and consider their theoretical and practical implications for implementing minipublics and bolstering their deliberative quality.

What Creates Listening Online? Exploring Reciprocity in Online Political Discussions with Relational Content Analysis

Democratic governmentsfrequently use online tools to include large numbers of citizens inparticipation processes. Against the backdrop of deliberative theories, suchinitiatives are subject to normative needs. This article examines the equalityof participation. Previous research has mainly focused on equality in terms ofaccess to, and voice within, deliberation processes. However, much less isknown about the factors that influence the distribution of reciprocity inonline political discussions. Proposing a theoretical distinction betweensimple replying and deliberative reciprocity, this study addresses thequestion: What obstructs or promotes deliberative reciprocity online? Drawingon previous online communication research, we assume that communication style,gender and users’ activity are important predictors of simple replying anddeliberative reciprocity. Results of a relational quantitative content analysisindicate that in order to receive deliberative reciprocity users should askquestions, propose arguments, be humorous, have a critical attitude and use amale user name. Storytelling and expressions of emotions show either negativeor not significant effects.

Deliberative Democracy in Multicultural Societies: The Challenges of Effectiveness, Legitimacy, and Equality

Multicultural societies are marked by the coexistence of ethnic, sexual, religious, racial, and cultural minorities and mainstream groups. This coexistence can either be tense or collaborative. How to bridge the gap between the political demands of majority and minority groups? What are the obstacles to meaningful participation? What are the main challenges faced by such societies? And finally, how do we encourage large-scale debates around issues of minorities? In order to provide answers to these questions, this review examines Intercultural Deliberation and the Politics of Minority Rights by R. E. Lowe-Walker (2018), Deliberative Democracy Now: LGBT Equality and the Emergence of Large-Scale Deliberative Systems by Edwina Barvosa (2018), and Deliberative Democracy, Political Legitimacy, and Self-determination in Multicultural Societies by Jorge M. Valadez (2018).

Mediated Deliberation in Deep Conflicts: How Might Deliberative Media Content Contribute to Social Integration Across Deep Divides?

Conflicts perceived by the media, either within or across national borders, are a staple of modern societies. These conflicts become especially challenging for societies that are divided along religious, ethnic, cultural or political lines. In the light of such deep conflicts, the contribution of mediated deliberation to social integration moves center stage. In this paper we discuss normative standards for mediated public communication deemed conducive to social integration in divided societies by deliberative theorists. We identify inclusiveness, responsiveness, mutual respect, and the display of group-bridging identities as the essential criteria. These criteria can be applied as yardsticks to assess the production, the content as well as the reception of media material in both mass media and social media. They therefore serve as an ideal point of departure for empirical work on the media’s role in social integration.

Making cross-cutting exposure more deliberative The moderating role of the equality rule in online discussions on a gender issue

Contrary to the normative emphasis on the rule of equality in the deliberation literature, little has been known about empirical consequences of the rule of equality, especially when applied in online discussions where political disagreement is prevalent. Given that hostile gender-related discussions have been noticeably increasing in South Korea, we investigated whether applying deliberative rules, especially cross-cutting exposure and equality, can improve gender-issue discussion quality and foster mutual understanding and healthy political engagement. For this purpose, we designed an online experiment involving moderated deliberations on the abolition of the national abortion ban via KakaoTalk, the most popular messenger platform in South Korea. The deliberative qualities of online discussions in terms of rationality and civility were assessed in a more objective and unobtrusive way: a content analysis of actual conversation transcripts. Participatory intention for gender issue-related activities and civic attitudes were also measured. Results indicate the equality rule can help to promote normatively desirable outcomes in discussions with disagreeing others while the positive effects of cross-cutting exposure were found limited. When combined with the rule of equality, hearing the other side meaningfully enhanced the deliberative qualities and participatory intentions of discussants.

Deliberative Quality and Expertise: Uses of Evidence in Citizens’ Juries on Wind Farms

When addressing socio-scientific wicked problems, there is a need to negotiate across and through multiple modes of evidence, particularly technical expertise and local knowledge. Democratic innovations, such as deliberative citizens’ juries, have been proposed as a means of managing these tensions and as a way of creating representative, fairer decision making. But there are questions around participatory processes, the utilization of expertise, and deliberative quality. This paper considers forms of argumentation in the 2013-2014 “Citizens’ juries on wind farm development in Scotland.” Through a critical-interpretative research methodology drawing on rhetoric and argumentation, we demonstrate that arguments relating to the topoi of the environment and health functioned as de facto reasoning, whereas arguments using social scientific evidence around economics more prominently interacted with local knowledge. The findings offer implications for process design to improve and promote deliberative quality in mini-publics and other forms of participatory engagement on socio-scientific issues.

Seeing Like a Citizen: How Being a Participant in a Citizens' Assembly Changed Everything I Thought I Knew about Deliberative Minipublics

This paper presents a participant-observation account of my experience as a randomly selected participant at a Citizens’ Assembly. I reflect on what the unique experience of ‘seeing like a citizen’ can add to accepted understandings and practices of mini-public deliberation. I find that the experience, though energising, exciting and ultimately hugely worthwhile, also upended many of my prior assumptions grounded in academic scholarship and previous experience as an observer, facilitator and organiser of such events. I draw on the experience to shed new light on the capacity of assembled citizens to: accurately reflect the concerns of the broader community; soberly digest and reflect on evidence; earnestly engage in reasoned argumentation with one another; carefully reach sophisticated or thought-through recommendations as a collective; or ultimately gain a broader sense of efficacy from their engagement as individuals. The point in making these observations is not to critique moves toward democratic innovation (or the specific Citizens’ Assembly I was a part of), but to push forward scholarship and practice to respond and adapt to these little considered challenges.

«That’s just my opinion»: The principle of expression and the public debate

Public debate is commonly understood as deliberation; as the weighing of arguments for and against choices of future action. A principle of deliberation entails that interlocutors approach one another through argumentation in favour and against a given point of view. In this article, I outline a competing debate ideal, the principle of expression, and demonstrate its pervasiveness in contemporary public rhetoric. According to this communicative ideal, public debate is understood not as an exchange of opinion but rather a display of opinions. The beliefs and opinions voiced in the public debate should, moreover, be seen as purely expressive: They arise out of the individual’s inviolable interiority and individuality. As such, argumentation is neither required nor legitimate. In the article, I outline the principle of expression and discuss its implications for the democratic public debate. I do so, by drawing on a case study of public debate in social media, as well as recent utterances spoken by political leaders. In moving between the utterances of ordinary people engaged in public debate in the informal setting of social media and the utterances of political leaders in formal settings, I demonstrate the pervasiveness of the principle of expression in contemporary public rhetoric.

Listening to the Public: An Inductive Analysis of the Good Citizen in a Deliberative System

Significant research has demonstrated that deliberative participation has a number of benefits for participants, leaving them more informed, efficacious, and engaged. Unfortunately, this model of the good citizen may be at odds with both what citizens want out of engagement and what might be most beneficial for self-empowerment. Activism, rather than deliberation, might be a more effective means of influencing public decisions, but traits associated with activism are often considered antithetical to deliberative participation. This paper utilizes a case study to ask what participants want out of engagement and whether their conception of the good citizen aligns with theoretical deliberative norms. Findings suggest that participants in a hybrid model of engagement that blends deliberative discussion with interest group politics want opportunities for public input that center interest formation and recognition, equity, and empowerment. These results suggest a need to better integrate the voices of citizens in normative deliberative theory and research.

`Representing and Being Represented in Turn’ - A Symposium on Hélène Landemore’s Open Democracy.”

Hélene Landemore’s Open Democracy challenges today’s democracies to meet their legitimacy deficits by opening up a wide array of participatory opportunities, from enhanced forms of direct democracy, to internet crowdsourcing, to representation through random selection to a citizens’ assembly: “representing and being represented in turn” (p. xvii).  Her aim: to replace citizen consent with citizen power.  The critics advance both praise and misgivings.  Joshua Cohen would prefer Landemore’s proffered innovations as supplements, not alternatives, to the current system. Daniela Cammack would prefer more emphasis on the many forms of mass gathering, not representation.  Peter Stone considers citizens’ assemblies inadequate for popular sovereignty.  Christopher Achen warns of problems inaccurate representation, through both self-selection into the lottery and domination in the discussion. Ethan Lieb argues that particular innovations are useful only in some contexts, and that in each citizens should learn their appropriate role responsibilities. Landemore responds by agreeing, clarifying and rebutting.