Search results

AbstractThe quality of deliberative conversations are dependent on citizens compliance with deliberative norms yet there is a lack of methods to assess norm compliance in discussions. Here, the psychological construct of complexity of thinking is claimed to conceptually correspond to the deliberative conversational ideal and adopted as a measurement of deliberative norm compliance. The hypothesis that citizens' complexity of thinking increases as a result of participation in deliberative conversations was tested in a minipublic case study in Sweden. Participants' complexity of thinking was assessed before and after deliberation by responding to an open‐ended question about the topic of debate. Manual coding was used to rate participants integrative complexity. The result confirms the hypothesis, which serves as an indicator of deliberative quality. The study also demonstrates that women get higher increases in complexity, as do highly agreeable individuals and those who hold more liberal views. The findings demonstrate the potential usefulness of integrative complexity as a measurement of deliberative quality.

Inclusiveness is essential to deliberative democracy, but factors influencing citizens' willingness to participate in deliberation need to be better understood. In the case of deliberative minipublics, demographic, and attitudinal attributes demonstrably correlate with willingness to participate, and thus arguably affect the inclusiveness of deliberative events. Similarly, features of deliberative situations also influence participation – whether it will be decisive, for example. However, what is lacking is a framework for how individual and situational characteristics interact, and the role of background political and cultural settings in influencing this dynamic. Advances in personality psychology offers a useful framework for addressing this lacuna, as well as providing tools for understanding how effective participation can be enhanced. In this article, I explore how personality interacts with situational features to influence patterns of deliberative participation, as well as the motivations that are associated. These effects are illustrated by drawing on data from a field experiment, involving minipublic deliberation in Sweden on the issue of begging by internal EU migrants. The findings support the relevance of personality as a predictor of participation in deliberation, which interacts with features of deliberative situations to induce particular motivations to either participate or refuse.

"Deliberative activism" refers to the integration of two ideals of citizen participation: deliberation and activism. While there are strong arguments for bridging the gap between the two ideals, it is equally important to keep what is distinct about deliberative activism because all activism is not (and presumably should not aspire to be) deliberative. In this article, we claim that there are certain ethical and epistemic norms of deliberation that can inform our understanding of "deliberative activism", thereby help to draw the boundary between activism and deliberative activism. By looking at a particular form of activism—provocative art—that is intuitively antithetical to the deliberative ideal, we argue that simple activism can be differentiated from deliberative activism by considering to what extent activists' adhere to principles of reasonableness and dialogic responsiveness. Using four cases of controversial, provocative art exhibitions in Sweden that challenges the boundaries of public deliberation we conclude that that it is important to distinguish acts that initiate deliberation from those that are acts of deliberation in themselves. The distinguishing factor must be at the heart of deliberation namely an ethical commitment to dialogue. To the very least, actors must explain their claim as if they were in dialogue.

Citizens' adherence to deliberative civic values fulfils a vital function in deliberative democratic systems. We propose a way to measure the prevalence and variations of such values as a first step to better understanding how this works. Based on survey data, we demonstrate that, in Sweden, adherence to the values of reasoning and listening is stronger than adherence to the strategic rhetorical, non-deliberative values. This may have important implications for our understanding of how deliberation and democracy work in this particular context. There are also, however, important individual-level variations of adherence to deliberative civic values related to age, education, gender and Swedish background. Taken together, this opens up for a new research agenda where comparative analyses of deliberative civic values and how it relates to political behaviour are particularly encouraged.