Civil Society at the Negotiation Table, Legitimacy Beliefs and Durable Peace

It is argued that including civil society at the negotiation table can increase the perceived legitimacy of peace treaties. As a result, it can contribute to the consolidation of peace. In this paper, the author presents the findings from a controlled experiment in order to test the impact of inclusive peace negotiations on the perceived legitimacy of peace treaties. Contrary to the expectations of the scholars working on the inclusiveness and the consolidation of peace hypothesis, the results show that the treatment group in the experiment does not perceive inclusive peace agreements to be more legitimate

Beyond public acceptance of energy infrastructure:How citizens make sense and form reactions by enacting networks of entities in infrastructure development

AbstractThis article adds to the growing insight into public acceptance by presenting a novel approach to how citizens make sense of new energy infrastructure. We claim that to understand public acceptance, we need to go beyond the current thinking of citizens framed as passive respondents to proposed projects, and instead view infrastructure projects as enacted by citizens in their local settings. We propose a combination of sensemaking theory and actor–network theory that allows insight into how citizens enact entities from experiences and surroundings in order to create meaning and form a reaction to new infrastructure projects. Empirically, we analyze how four citizens make sense of an electricity cable project through a conversation process with a representative from the infrastructure developer. Interestingly, the formal participation process and the materiality of the cable play minor roles in citizens' sensemaking process. We conclude that insight into the way citizens are making sense of energy infrastructure processes can improve and help to overcome shortcomings in the current thinking about public acceptance and public participation

(Re)Design to Mitigate Political Polarization : Reflecting Habermas' ideal communication space in the United States of America and Finland

Social Media platforms are increasingly being used for political activities and communication, and research suggests that social media design and use is contributing to the polarization of the public sphere. This study draws on Habermas' ideals concerning deliberative democracy to explore if novel interface designs that diversify information sources through content recommendation, can decrease polarization. Through a design-probe interview approach and insights generated from 19 political and citizen experts in Finland and the United States, we found that our deliberative design can lead to depolarization, while creating additional complexity through which users question content and information. We discuss the need to move beyond naive content recommendation, and user interface level changes, in order to work towards a depolarized public sphere.Peer reviewe

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

Procedural Justice in Online Deliberation: Theoretical Explanations and Empirical Findings

This article reviews extant conceptualizations of procedural justice and reports the results of an empirical study testing the effects of fair deliberation. From a communicative action perspective, we argue that Habermas’s conceptions of speech conditions and validity conditions can be used to evaluate the discursive and substantive dimensions of procedural justice in deliberation. That is, fair deliberation is built on the fulfillment of discourse norms and the communicativeness of dialogic interactions. The communicative measures are compatible with extant procedural justice measures and provide a communication-centered ground for evaluating deliberative outcomes related to procedural justice. The case study involves public discussion of the Singaporean government’s population policies on an online deliberative platform. The results show that when procedural justice is presented in the realization of both speech conditions and validity conditions, it fosters participants’ beliefs in the rightfulness of deliberative policymaking. Additionally, speech conditions play a more important role than validity conditions in predicting citizens’ specific policy support after online deliberation. The findings illustrate one instance of how communicative norms are prioritized in different deliberative settings and what deliberative benefits a fair procedure can achieve. The results shed light on the theorization of procedural justice and advance the extant knowledge of evaluating procedural justice in deliberation

Effects of Knowledge and Reflection in Intrapersonal Deliberation

Deliberation is not a black box. In this paper, we look at intrapersonal deliberation, a process different from interpersonal deliberation. In particular, we examine two variables, i.e. knowledge access and reflection, looking at their effects on attitudes, attitude certainty, and willingness to express opinions. A between-subjects 2×2 factorial experimental study (N = 83) shows that both knowledge access and reflection could serve as 'double-edged swords' in deliberation. Knowledge access changed attitudes towards a milder position while reduced willingness to express opinions in public. Meanwhile, reflection increased perceived attitude correctness, which might have a mixed implication for deliberation. Further theoretical and practical implications are discussed

공정성 인식의 조절효과를 중심으로

학위논문 (석사) -- 서울대학교 대학원 : 행정대학원 행정학과(행정학전공), 2021. 2. 최태현.This study concerns preference determinants in a deliberative setting, in which persuasive variables allow individuals to change an initial stance about public affairs, as perception of procedural fairness moderates those effects towards distinct preferences. Many efforts have been made to include all opinions on certain issues in a public policy process. A traditional public opinion poll is generally thought to be incapable of measuring genuine beliefs, attitudes, and preferences, as the poll is an aggregation of immediate reactions. In addition, some argue that citizens cannot deal with public affairs due to their ignorance over social affairs and politics. Deliberative polling, given all affected principles, is regarded as an ideal alternative to the above-mentioned issues: it can promote public viewpoints by engaging in a reciprocal interaction. In this sense, deliberative polling can manage disagreements and legitimate the outcome: this must be carefully considered, regarding whose preferences may change as a result of deliberation. On the assumption that most preference changes emerge from persuasive communication, this study made use of four basic elements of persuasion with dependent variables: source, recipient, message, and context. The operational definition of dependent variables is defined as follows: source indicates who delivers the influential message; recipient indicates participants’ consideration about the poll and sourcebook reading; message refers to participants’ evaluation of the framed messages; context refers to the mode of participation. Participants’ perception of procedural fairness is seen as moderating the variables: if perceived as fair, the outcome will be accepted as legitimate. Since this study predicts a binary outcome, whether participants change their preferences or not, binary logistic regression is used to describe data and explain the relationship between two or more explanatory variables: it proceeds in a hierarchical manner to investigate if perceived procedural fairness moderates the relationship between persuasion elements and probabilities of participant preference changes. The results of this study are as follows: the primary finding is that participants' consideration about the poll is the most influential predictor of preference changes. If they are asked about the poll, contextual comprehension is necessary to give any answers. That is, participants’ consideration may lead to a diminished possibility of changed preferences. The study also found that, in some cases, perceived procedural fairness can moderate the relationship between independent and dependent variables. Interaction with participants’ views of perceived fairness, both considerations about the poll and favorable evaluations of pro argumentation diminish the chance of preferences changes. According to the results above, this study suggests that once participants move to contextual conceptualization of the subject, there are strong possibilities that individuals will either be favorably or unfavorably predisposed: these predispositions reveal their own preferences. In addition, perceived procedural fairness arises from an individual’s subjective evaluation about the process. Their subjective perceptions are most important as an influential element in determining the quality of deliberation, independent of persuasive setting. There are some limitations in this study. Since quantitative research methods are used to analyze numerical data, it is difficult to explore respondents’ beliefs. In some respects, an operational definition is insufficient to contain these features.본 연구는 공론조사를 정책의 정당성을 설득하는 과정이라 가정하고, 이에 영향을 미치는 요인을 제주특별자치도에서 실시한 ‘녹지국제병원 공론화를 위한 도민참여형 조사’ 사례를 바탕으로 확인하고자 하였다. 공론조사는 숙의를 전제한다는 점에서 일반 여론조사와 차이가 있고, 이를 통해 공익적 관점에 바탕을 둔 다수가 수용할 수 있는 결론을 도출할 수 있다고 여겨진다. 따라서 숙의를 찬·반 양측에서 자신이 다른 정책과 비교해 우위가 있음을 설득하는 과정으로 보고, 이는 참여자가 공론조사가 공정하게 운영된다고 평가하는지에 의해 영향을 받을 것이라 가정하였다. 이를 위해 독립변수로 정보원(가장 도움이 된 자료)과 이를 전달받는 대상(공론조사 인지 여부, 자료집 학습 정도), 화자의 의도가 담긴 메시지(자료집 난이도 평가), 그리고 의사소통이 발생하는 상황(분임토의 참여 태도)을 설정하고 이와 관련한 설문 문항을 조작적 정의하여 활용하였다. 종속변수는 공론조사 참여자가 제시된 정책 대안에 대한 자신의 선호를 변경하였는지고, 독립변수와 종속변수 간 영향 관계에 영향을 미치는 요인인 조절변수를 설정하여 분석에 추가하였다. 분석방법으로는 종속변수가 두 개의 범주를 가지는 이항변수이므로 이항 로지스틱 회귀분석 방법이 사용되었고, 조절효과 검증을 위해 독립변수, 조절변수 그리고 독립변수와 조절변수의 상호작용항을 차례로 투입하여 분석에 포함하였다. 분석 결과, 참여자의 선호변경에 대해서는 공론조사에 대해 알고 있다고 응답했는지만 통계적으로 유의함을 확인할 수 있었다. 특히 공론조사가 숙의를 바탕으로 참여자의 선호변경을 유도할 것이라는 예상과 달리 실제 사례를 바탕으로 확인한 결과에서는 자료집 학습 정도, 분임토의 참여 태도, 의견 결정에 도움이 된 자료가 어떤 것인지 그리고 어느 쪽 자료집이 이해하기 쉽다고 평가하는지는 통계적으로 유의한 결과를 확인할 수 없었다. 또한, 참여자가 공론화 과정을 공정하다고 평가하는지는 선호변경에 영향을 미치고, 공론조사에 대해 알고 있다고 응답했는지, 개설 허가 측 자료집이 어느 정도로 이해하기 쉽게 설명되었다고 평가했는지 두 독립변수가 참여자의 선호변경에 미치는 영향을 조절하는 것으로 나타났다. 일반적으로 공론조사를 통해 어떠한 방식으로든 선호의 변화가 있을 것을 기대하고 이를 위해서는 무엇보다 진정한 숙의가 이루어져야 한다. 그러나 분석 결과 설득적 의사소통과 관련해 설정한 변수가 유의함을 확인하지 못한 것은 공론조사가 숙의를 통해 참여자의 자기중심적인 측면을 극복할 수 있다는 공론조사의 가정에 제약이 있을 수 있음을 시사한다. 특히, 정책에 대해 표현하는 개인의 선호는 자신의 상황에 근거하므로 정책 대안을 위한 투표에서는 개인에게 주어지는 보수의 관점에서 접근하게 된다. 따라서 참여자가 상호작용 과정에서 자신의 정보를 공유하고 타인의 정보를 받아들일 수 있어야 숙의가 가능해지지만, 이를 위해서는 타인이 자신과 같은 가치를 가지고 있다고 믿어야 한다. 조절효과도 같은 맥락에서 해석할 수 있다. 공론조사 과정이 공정하게 운영되었는지는 절차적인 측면에서 모든 참여자가 동등하게 대우받았는지에 대한 것으로, 공론조사 과정을 공정하다고 느끼고 공론조사에 대해 알고 있었던 경우, 그리고 공론조사 과정을 공정하다고 느끼고 찬성 측 자료집이 이해하기 쉽다고 평가한 경우는 자신의 의견을 변경할 가능성이 줄어들었다. 이는 공론조사가 공정하게 운영되었다고 인식하는지가 조사 결과에 정당성을 부여한다는 측면에서 해석될 수 있다. 이상의 논의는 공론조사의 제도적인 측면도 물론 중요하지만, 참여자가 자신의 상황을 어떻게 인식하고 행동하는지가 더 중요할 수 있음을 시사한다. 공론조사가 숙의를 바탕으로 한 공적인 관점의 확대와 수용성 높은 공론 도출을 강조하지만, 숙의부터 선호변경에 이르는 많은 과정이 참여자의 인식에 영향을 받고 이 과정에서 제도의 영향은 제한적임을 추론할 수 있었다. 따라서 공론조사가 의도하는 바를 달성하기 위해서는 진정한 숙의와 토론을 할 수 있게 하는 조건에 대해 더 많이 고민해야 할 필요가 있다.제 1 장 서 론 1 제 1 절 연구의 목적 및 필요성 1 제 2 절 연구의 구성 3 1. 연구의 대상과 범위 3 2. 연구방법 3 제 2 장 이론적 논의 및 선행연구 검토 5 제 1 절 공론조사 5 1. 공론조사의 정의 5 2. 공론조사의 가정 6 3. 선행연구 8 제 2 절 정책선호 11 1. 정책선호의 정의 11 2. 정책선호에 대한 가정 11 3. 정책선호의 영향 요인 12 4. 선행연구 18 제 3 절 공론조사와 정책선호의 형성 20 1. 공론조사와 정책선호 20 2. 공론조사와 집합적 선호 결정 21 3. 선행연구 22 제 3 장 연구설계 25 제 1 절 연구가설 빛 연구모형 25 1. 연구자료 25 2. 연구가설 설정 25 3. 연구의 분석틀 29 제 2 절 변수의 정의 및 측정 30 1. 종속변수 30 2. 독립변수 30 3. 조절변수 32 제 4 장 분석결과 35 제 1 절 주요변수의 기술통계 및 상관관계 35 1. 기술통계 35 2. 주요 변수의 연관성 분석 43 제 2 절 이항 로지스틱 회귀분석 49 1. 모형의 적합도 검증 49 2. 회귀분석결과 50 제 3 절 연구가설의 검증 59 1. 설득적 의사소통에 대한 가설 검증 59 2. 공정성 인식에 대한 가설 검증 61 제 5 장 결론 62 제 1 절 연구결과의 요약 62 제 2 절 연구의 의의 및 시사점 64 제 3 절 연구의 한계 66 참고문헌 68 Abstract 75Maste

Credibility in CSR communication: concepts, methods, analyses

In globalized markets, norms for legitimate behavior are scattered and businesses must satisfy often conflicting demands of various stakeholders simultaneously. This is why communicating their Corporate Social Responsibilities (CSR) in a legitimate way is challenging. The present is also a high time for a debate of CSR issues and an era of public scrutiny and mistrust, catalyzed by real-time communication technologies and a 24/7 news cycle. Instances of non-credible communication, the misuse of CSR for marketing exercises, and corporate scandals with large environmental and social impact have sparked skepticism and mistrust toward CSR communication and its tools, particularly CSR reports. As a result, companies and stakeholders are trapped in the “credibility gap” of CSR reporting, which is harmful for both: stakeholders cannot satisfy their information needs regarding CSR and companies can hardly convey their CSR activities in a credible manner. Even though credibility is central to CSR communication and despite the fact that communicating non-credibly has lasting negative consequences for companies, there is no consensus about the concept of credibility and barely any studies exist that tackle credibility gaps systematically. This dissertation endeavors to investigate the issue of credibility in CSR communication theoretically, methodologically, and empirically. In particular, it analyzes companies’ and stakeholders’ perspectives of the “credibility gap” in CSR reporting. It explores concepts and methods to investigate how companies can communicate credibly and provides empirical evidence on the state-of-the-art of CSR reporting in Europe. To this end, it combines concepts from business ethics, management studies, political theory, and communication sciences and triangulates various methods. This dissertation is structured in four individual chapters framed by an introductory part and conclusions. The key findings can be summarized as follows. Chapter I proposes that communication is at the heart of CSR by highlighting Habermasian communicative action theory as the backbone of political CSR theory. Furthermore, it discusses how credible CSR communication leads to moral legitimacy and thus provides the conceptual foundation of this dissertation. Based on this theoretical advancement, the chapter develops a typology of CSR communication tools clustering them into deliberative and instrumental as well as published and unpublished tools. Chapter II presents quantitative content analysis as a suitable method to generate novel insights in business ethics, and especially CSR, research. Given the diametrical advantages of human- and software-based coding procedures, a concurrent mixed methods approach is proposed. To account for the need of ethical reasoning in business ethics research, the chapter suggests that quantitative content analyses be followed by an ethical interpretation of the quantitative results. Chapter III analyzes, for the first time, the “credibility gap” in CSR reporting from the perspective of the company, by applying quantitative content analysis as proposed in Chapter II. To this end, the credibility of CSR reports from 11 European countries is analyzed based on a multidimensional operationalization of credibility along Habermasian theory. Parametric statistical analyses reveal that European CSR reports are credible at a mediocre level. It is the content of the reports that matter for credibility, while the impact of contextual, format, and firm-level factors is secondary. Furthermore, voluntary standardization impacts credibility positively, whereas legislation does not yet have the same positive effect. Addressing the stakeholders’ perspective, Chapter IV develops a measurement scale to test the perceptions of credibility of CSR reports. In doing so, the chapter builds on a novel conceptualization of credibility along the Habermsian validity claims. The scale development comprises nine stages including a literature review, a delphi study, and three validation studies applying exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to arrive at the final 16-item PERCRED (perceived credibility) scale. Participants in the final study perceived CSR reports to be rather credible, regardless of whether the same reports had been found credible or non-credible in Chapter III. The PERCRED measure can help companies and researchers deepen the understanding of why CSR reports are often perceived as being non-credible tools. The findings of this dissertation demonstrate that the “credibility gap” equally exists from the companies’ and the stakeholders’ perspectives. To eventually bridge it, striving for true, sincere, appropriate, and understandable communication by all parties is a viable avenue. Describing credibility as a communication quality and perception construct along the four sub-dimensions truth, sincerity, appropriateness, and understandability advances the understanding of credibility in the communication sciences. This dissertation contributes to theory development in the emerging field of CSR reporting by presenting credible CSR reports as facilitators to re- and maintain legitimacy and by systematically examining this notion from the perspective of companies and stakeholders. The thesis further advances political CSR theory as it empirically confirms the impact of voluntary standardization and stresses the role of the nation state. The findings of this dissertation also hold implications for public policy makers to level the playing field in CSR reporting in order to reach credibility consistently; companies are provided with a tool to measure credibility perceptions of their reports and to better evaluate the roots of stakeholders’ criticism and mistrust