Zato što je političko znanje bitno: utjecaj deliberacije na mišljenje mladih građana

This paper addresses the importance of “knowledge” and “access to information” in the formation of young citizens’ opinion through deliberative procedures. The research presented in this paper is grounded in the theoretical framework of deliberative democracy as a democratic model and procedure that allows participants to be engaged in a rational and open dialogue before deciding on a particular issue. Our research draws empirically upon a deliberative event that took place in October 2014 at the Western Macedonia University of Applied Sciences in Greece. The topic of deliberation was “Political Public Opinion Polls.” The results of this study are commensurate with the dominant thesis in the relevant literature, which underlines that the deliberative procedure enriches the knowledge of citizens and thus enables them to participate effectively in the decision making process.Ovaj rad bavi se važnošću „znanja“ i „pristupa informacijama“ u formiranju mišljenja mladih građana o pojedinim temama kroz deliberativne procedure. Deliberativna demokracija, kao demokratski model i demokratska procedura koja dopušta sudionicima uključivanje u racionalan i otvoren dijalog prije odlučivanja o određenoj temi, teorijski je okvir na kojem se temelji istraživanje predstavljeno u ovom radu. Empirijski dio našeg rada temelji se na deliberativnom događaju koji se odvio u listopadu 2014. na instituciji za visoko obrazovanje Western Macedonia University of Applied Sciences u Grčkoj. Tema deliberacije bila je „Anketna istraživanja javnog mnijenja o politici“. Rezultati ovog istraživanja potvrđuju tezu iz relevantne literature koja naglašava kako deliberativne procedure obogaćuju znanje građana i tako im omogućavaju da učinkovito sudjeluju u procesu donošenja odluka

Effects of participatory deliberative processes on citizens’ civic virtues, skills, and attitudes: The case of the Lisbon Citizens' Council

Does participation make citizens better? Doubts still surround one of the central arguments to the theories of participatory and deliberative democracy. This research aims to answer the ever-lasting question by looking into the civic virtues, skills, and attitudes of the citizens who took part in the first participatory deliberative process to be initiated by an elected body in Portugal - the Lisbon Citizens' Council. In order to assess the impact of this democratic innovation, this study resorts to a quasi-experimental research design, comparing two otherwise similar groups. The results indicate that citizens' external political efficacy, factual knowledge of the issue at stake, and satisfaction with democracy at the national and local levels are heightened as a direct cause of taking part in the process.A participação torna os cidadãos melhores? Ainda existem dúvidas relativamente a um dos argumentos centrais das teorias da democracia participativa e deliberativa. Esta investigação pretende responder à eterna questão, analisando as virtudes cívicas, competências e atitudes dos cidadãos que participaram no primeiro processo participativo e deliberativo a ser iniciado por um órgão eleito em Portugal - o Conselho de Cidadãos de Lisboa. Para avaliar o impacto desta inovação democrática, este estudo recorre a um desenho de pesquisa quase- experimental, comparando dois grupos semelhantes. Os resultados indicam que a eficácia política externa dos cidadãos, o conhecimento factual do tema em questão e a satisfação com a democracia nos níveis nacional e local são potencializados, como causa direta da sua participação no processo

All Together Now: Collaboration and Innovation for Youth Engagement

Each new generation must become active, informed, responsible, and effective citizens. As a teacher we surveyed for this report said, civic education "is essential if we are to continue as a free democratic society. Not to educate the next generation will ensure the destruction of our American way of life as we know it."Data show that many young Americans are reasonably well informed and active. For instance, 45% of citizens between the ages of 18 and 29 voted in the 2012 election. In a national survey conducted for this Commission, 76% of people under the age of 25 who voted could correctly answer at least one (out of two) factual questions about where the presidential candidates stood on a campaign issue and state their own opinion on that issue.On the other hand, more than half of young people did not vote. And on some topics, most young people were misinformed. A majority (51.2%) of under 25-year olds believed that the federal government spends more on foreign aid than on Social Security, when in fact Social Security costs about 20 times more. (Older adults have also been found to be misinformed on similar topics.) Our research, like many other studies, finds that young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are far less likely to be informed and to vote.These shortcomings cannot be attributed to the schools alone, since families, friends, political campaigns, election officials, the mass media, social media, and community-based organizations are among the other important influences on young people. In fact, our research shows that while schools matter, civic education must be a shared responsibility.The outcomes are acceptable only when all the relevant institutions invite, support, and educate young people to engage in politics and civic life. Improving the quality and quantity of youth participation will require new collaborations; for example, state election officials and schools should work together to make voting procedures understandable and to educate students about voting rules

DELIBERATION AS A CORE PART OF TEACHER EDUCATION AND CIVICS CLASSROOMS

The author argues that deliberation should be an integral part of secondary civics classrooms and teacher education programs. Drawing on a wide range of research, she contends that teaching and learning deliberative skills has the potential to build individual and group civic capacity. She focuses on the results of an evaluation of one 10-nation project, Deliberating in a Democracy, which suggest that teachers can learn to conduct deliberations in secondary classrooms. Further, across countries, students reported increases in their understanding of issues, their ability to state their opinions, and their confidence in talking about controversial issues with peers. Most importantly, students demonstrated greater perspective-taking abilities than a comparison group not involved in the project. The potential limitations and weaknesses of the deliberative model are discussed, as are the implications for civic pedagogy and learning

Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice

Can new technology enhance purpose-driven, democratic dialogue in groups, governments, and societies? Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice is the first book that attempts to sample the full range of work on online deliberation, forging new connections between academic research, technology designers, and practitioners. Since some of the most exciting innovations have occurred outside of traditional institutions, and those involved have often worked in relative isolation from each other, work in this growing field has often failed to reflect the full set of perspectives on online deliberation. This volume is aimed at those working at the crossroads of information/communication technology and social science, and documents early findings in, and perspectives on, this new field by many of its pioneers. CONTENTS: Introduction: The Blossoming Field of Online Deliberation (Todd Davies, pp. 1-19) Part I - Prospects for Online Civic Engagement Chapter 1: Virtual Public Consultation: Prospects for Internet Deliberative Democracy (James S. Fishkin, pp. 23-35) Chapter 2: Citizens Deliberating Online: Theory and Some Evidence (Vincent Price, pp. 37-58) Chapter 3: Can Online Deliberation Improve Politics? Scientific Foundations for Success (Arthur Lupia, pp. 59-69) Chapter 4: Deliberative Democracy, Online Discussion, and Project PICOLA (Public Informed Citizen Online Assembly) (Robert Cavalier with Miso Kim and Zachary Sam Zaiss, pp. 71-79) Part II - Online Dialogue in the Wild Chapter 5: Friends, Foes, and Fringe: Norms and Structure in Political Discussion Networks (John Kelly, Danyel Fisher, and Marc Smith, pp. 83-93) Chapter 6: Searching the Net for Differences of Opinion (Warren Sack, John Kelly, and Michael Dale, pp. 95-104) Chapter 7: Happy Accidents: Deliberation and Online Exposure to Opposing Views (Azi Lev-On and Bernard Manin, pp. 105-122) Chapter 8: Rethinking Local Conversations on the Web (Sameer Ahuja, Manuel Pérez-Quiñones, and Andrea Kavanaugh, pp. 123-129) Part III - Online Public Consultation Chapter 9: Deliberation in E-Rulemaking? The Problem of Mass Participation (David Schlosberg, Steve Zavestoski, and Stuart Shulman, pp. 133-148) Chapter 10: Turning GOLD into EPG: Lessons from Low-Tech Democratic Experimentalism for Electronic Rulemaking and Other Ventures in Cyberdemocracy (Peter M. Shane, pp. 149-162) Chapter 11: Baudrillard and the Virtual Cow: Simulation Games and Citizen Participation (Hélène Michel and Dominique Kreziak, pp. 163-166) Chapter 12: Using Web-Based Group Support Systems to Enhance Procedural Fairness in Administrative Decision Making in South Africa (Hossana Twinomurinzi and Jackie Phahlamohlaka, pp. 167-169) Chapter 13: Citizen Participation Is Critical: An Example from Sweden (Tomas Ohlin, pp. 171-173) Part IV - Online Deliberation in Organizations Chapter 14: Online Deliberation in the Government of Canada: Organizing the Back Office (Elisabeth Richard, pp. 177-191) Chapter 15: Political Action and Organization Building: An Internet-Based Engagement Model (Mark Cooper, pp. 193-202) Chapter 16: Wiki Collaboration Within Political Parties: Benefits and Challenges (Kate Raynes-Goldie and David Fono, pp. 203-205) Chapter 17: Debian’s Democracy (Gunnar Ristroph, pp. 207-211) Chapter 18: Software Support for Face-to-Face Parliamentary Procedure (Dana Dahlstrom and Bayle Shanks, pp. 213-220) Part V - Online Facilitation Chapter 19: Deliberation on the Net: Lessons from a Field Experiment (June Woong Rhee and Eun-mee Kim, pp. 223-232) Chapter 20: The Role of the Moderator: Problems and Possibilities for Government-Run Online Discussion Forums (Scott Wright, pp. 233-242) Chapter 21: Silencing the Clatter: Removing Anonymity from a Corporate Online Community (Gilly Leshed, pp. 243-251) Chapter 22: Facilitation and Inclusive Deliberation (Matthias Trénel, pp. 253-257) Chapter 23: Rethinking the ‘Informed’ Participant: Precautions and Recommendations for the Design of Online Deliberation (Kevin S. Ramsey and Matthew W. Wilson, pp. 259-267) Chapter 24: PerlNomic: Rule Making and Enforcement in Digital Shared Spaces (Mark E. Phair and Adam Bliss, pp. 269-271) Part VI - Design of Deliberation Tools Chapter 25: An Online Environment for Democratic Deliberation: Motivations, Principles, and Design (Todd Davies, Brendan O’Connor, Alex Cochran, Jonathan J. Effrat, Andrew Parker, Benjamin Newman, and Aaron Tam, pp. 275-292) Chapter 26: Online Civic Deliberation with E-Liberate (Douglas Schuler, pp. 293-302) Chapter 27: Parliament: A Module for Parliamentary Procedure Software (Bayle Shanks and Dana Dahlstrom, pp. 303-307) Chapter 28: Decision Structure: A New Approach to Three Problems in Deliberation (Raymond J. Pingree, pp. 309-316) Chapter 29: Design Requirements of Argument Mapping Software for Teaching Deliberation (Matthew W. Easterday, Jordan S. Kanarek, and Maralee Harrell, pp. 317-323) Chapter 30: Email-Embedded Voting with eVote/Clerk (Marilyn Davis, pp. 325-327) Epilogue: Understanding Diversity in the Field of Online Deliberation (Seeta Peña Gangadharan, pp. 329-358). For individual chapter downloads, go to odbook.stanford.edu

Reflections from Participants

The Road Ahead: Public Dialogue on Science and Technology brings together some of the UK’s leading thinkers and practitioners in science and society to ask where we have got to, how we have got here, why we are doing what we are doing and what we should do next. The collection of essays aims to provide policy makers and dialogue deliverers with insights into how dialogue could be used in the future to strengthen the links between science and society. It is introduced by Professor Kathy Sykes, one of the UK’s best known science communicators, who is also the head of the Sciencewise-ERC Steering Group, and Jack Stilgoe, a DEMOS associate, who compiled the collection

Democratic innovations in Finnish local politics : essays on the varieties, causes and consequences of mechanisms for direct citizen participation

Democratic governments around the world have become interested in democratic innovations, i.e. mechanisms for citizens’ direct participation in decision-making. Typical examples include referendums, citizens’ initiatives, deliberative mini-publics, participatory budgeting, committees, surveys and online applications. This work examines the causes and consequences of democratic innovations in the context of Finnish local politics through an introductory chapter and three independent articles. The first article studies the linkage between political trust and support for democratic innovations by analyzing survey data from municipal residents in Southwest Finland in 2013. The results indicate that democratic innovations may not be able to attract the most skeptical citizens, regardless of whether participation takes place online or offline. The second article investigates factors explaining the occurrence of democratic innovations, namely referendum motions and advisory referendums, with a case-control study of Finnish municipalities in 1991-2012. It shows that their occurrence is influenced by various systemic factors, such as political support, municipal size, policy diffusion and party system factors. The third article addresses the question whether democratic innovations can influence the wider public. The analyses based on hierarchical data covering 9022 individuals in 30 Finnish municipalities in 2011 reveal that citizens’ evaluations of procedural fairness are higher in municipalities that offer possibilities for discursive participation. The availability of participatory mechanisms does not, however, affect satisfaction with outcomes of decision-making. Overall, the results of the three articles indicate that the details in institutional design matter for both favorable preconditions and potential consequences of democratic innovations. The introductory chapter lays out a framework for systematically analyzing the institutional design features of democratic innovations, and discusses a number of normative justifications for deepening citizen participation in democratic governance. Through theoretical discussion and reflection of empirical findings as well previous empirical research, the introductory chapter points out that participation should not be justified only by its positive effects on those who participate, but also by its epistemic and systemic value.Demokraattiset hallitukset ympäri maailmaa ovat viime aikoina kiinnostuneet demokraattisista innovaatioista, eli kansalaisten suoran osallistumisen mekanismeista. Tyypillisiä esimerkkejä ovat kansanäänestykset, kansalaisaloitteet, deliberatiiviset kansalaisfoorumit, osallistuva budjetointi, yhteistyöelimet, kyselyt ja sähköiset osallistumissovellukset. Tämä tutkimus tarkastelee demokraattisten innovaatioiden syitä ja seurauksia Suomen kuntatasolla johdantoluvun ja kolmen itsenäisen artikkelin kautta. Ensimmäisessä artikkelissa tutkitaan poliittisen luottamuksen ja demokraattisten innovaatioiden kannatuksen välistä yhteyttä analysoimalla Lounais-Suomessa vuonna 2013 kerättyä kuntalaiskyselyaineistoa. Tulosten mukaan demokraattiset innovaatiot eivät välttämättä houkuttele kaikkein skeptisimmin päätöksentekoon suhtautuvia kansalaisia. Toisessa artikkelissa tutkitaan tapaus-verrokkitutkimuksen menetelmin, mitkä tekijät selittävät demokraattisten innovaatioiden, erityisesti kansanäänestysaloitteiden ja neuvoa-antavien kansanäänestysten, esiintymistä Suomen kunnissa 1991-2012. Artikkelin tulokset osoittavat, että näiden demokraattisten innovaatioiden esiintymiseen vaikuttavat erilaiset kuntatason tekijät, kuten järjestelmän kannatus, kuntakoko, osallistumisen kulttuuri ja puolueiden voimasuhteet. Kolmannessa artikkelissa vastataan kysymykseen, voiko demokraattisilla innovaatioilla olla vaikutuksia kansalaisten laajempaan yleisöön, analysoimalla hierarkkista aineistoa, joka kattaa 9022 kuntalaista 30 kunnassa vuonna 2011. Tulosten mukaan keskusteluun pohjautuvat osallistumismuodot voivat vahvistaa kuntalaisten kokemuksia päätöksentekoprosessien oikeudenmukaisuudesta, mutta kunnan tarjoamilla suorilla osallistumiskanavilla ei ole yhteyttä siihen, miten tyytyväisiä kuntalaiset ovat julkisiin palveluihin. Kaikkien kolmen artikkelin tulokset osoittavat yleisellä tasolla, että osallistumismuotojen suunnittelun yksityiskohdat ovat yhteydessä sekä niiden käytön syihin että potentiaalisiin vaikutuksiin. Johdantoluvussa luodaan viitekehys demokraattisten innovaatioiden luokitteluun, ja keskustellaan kolmesta eri tavasta, joilla kansalaisten suora osallistuminen päätöksentekoon on oikeutettu normatiivisissa demokratiateorioissa. Arvioimalla näitä demokratiateoreettisia lähtökohtia ja peilaamalla niitä tämän tutkimuksen tuloksiin sekä aiempaan empiiriseen tutkimukseen johdantoluvussa osoitetaan, että kansalaisten suoraa osallistumista ei tulisi perustella pelkästään posiitivisilla vaikutuksilla osallistujiin, vaan tulisi huomioida myös osallistumisen arvo päätösten laadulle ja laajemmalle yleisölle

Deliberative democracy and inequality: Two cheers for enclave deliberation among the disempowered

Deliberative democracy grounds its legitimacy largely in the ability of speakers to participate on equal terms. Yet theorists and practitioners have struggled with how to establish deliberative equality in the face of stark differences of power in liberal democracies. Designers of innovative civic forums for deliberation often aim to neutralize inequities among participants through proportional inclusion of disempowered speakers and discourses. In contrast, others argue that democratic equality is best achieved when disempowered groups deliberate in their own enclaves (interest groups, parties, and movements) before entering the broader public sphere. Borrowing from each perspective, the authors argue that there are strong reasons to incorporate enclave deliberation among the disempowered within civic forums. They support this claim by presenting case study evidence showing that participants in such forums can gain some of the same benefits of deliberation found in more heterogeneous groups (e.g., political knowledge, efficacy and trust), can consider a diversity of viewpoints rather than falling into groupthink and polarization, and can persuade external stakeholders of the legitimacy of the group’s deliberations

Civic engagement, pedagogy, and information technology on Web sites for youth

Scholars of political socialization are paying increasing attention to how the Internet might help cure the civic disengagement of youth. This content analysis of a sample of 73 U.S.-based civic Web sites for youth introduces a framework for evaluating Web sites’ strategies for fostering active communication for citizenship. We offer the first systematic assessment of the extent to which a broad range of Web sites aim to develop young people’s abilities to use information and communication technology (ICT) as a vehicle for civic participation and to engage with ICT as a policy domain that encompasses issues (such as freedom of speech and intellectual property rights) that shape the conditions for popular sovereignty online. The study finds low levels of interactive features (such as message boards) that allow young people to share editorial control by offering their own content. In addition, few sites employ active pedagogical techniques (such as simulations) that research suggests are most effective at developing civic knowledge, skills, and participation. We also find little attention to ICT policy issues, which could engage budding citizens in debates over the formative conditions for political communication in the information age. We conclude with suggestions for civic Web site designers and hypotheses for user studies to test

Viewer-Generated Comments to Online Health Policy News: Content, Dynamics, and Influence

New media has changed people’s experience with news. News readers nowadays encounter both selective opinions from elite sources and comments from anonymous strangers. The question is: how do people simultaneously process these two types of information? This dissertation selects a health policy, namely the cigarette graphic warning label (GWL) policy, locates online news reports on the major developments of the GWL policy, examines the content and dynamics of the public deliberation on the comment boards for these news articles, and explores the social consequences of such deliberation on news readers. A computerized content analysis was first conducted on user-generated comments following GWL news articles and results showed the majority of the comments were relevant to the issue under debate and argumentative and thus qualified as public deliberation. Comments were predominantly against GWL, and the most prevalent argument was the danger of government infringing on personal life. Three thematic frames emerged from the coding of arguments in comments: the legitimacy of the policy, the effectiveness of the GWL, and the presentational features of the labels. An experiment was then conducted to test the effect of news and comments on readers’ attitude and behavior. Readers of oppositional comments showed significantly lower level of policy support than those who read no comment or supportive comments. News story elicited the highest level of policy support when only the basic facts of the policy but none of the argumentative themes was covered. Comments outperformed news in shaping readers’ thought diversity such that comments could stimulate people to think more when news is narrow, and limit people to think less when news is thorough. Political ideology interacted with comment valence to influence participation such that conservatives tend to post comments if the opinion climate is overly positive, but liberals did not show interest in posting when the opinion climate is overly negative. Comments are a distorted reflection of public opinion. Content analysis found only 10% of the comments expressed any form of support for the GWL policy while 61% of the experiment participants indicated they were in favor of the policy