Suchergebnisse

Typically a field for political theorists, deliberative democracy is becoming more empirical using a diverse array of methodologies for investigation of a variety of real-world settings. Yet moving forward, this field faces the three distinct challenges of booming diversity in conceptualizing deliberation, appropriate methodological tools, & development of a more unified & analytical framework. The standard conception has a strong Habermasian orientation, while more recent conceptions are closely linked to criticism of Habermasian discourse models as being impossible to achieve in the real world & having undesirable & potentially exclusionary side-effects due to its strong focus on rational discourse & consensus. Even as new directions are welcomed in empirical research, growing diversity raises issues of theoretical coherence in deliberative theory, & empirical contributions have been unable to draw a clear line between true deliberative & strategic action despite increasing methodological sophistication. Although computer assisted textual analysis can speed up data collection, empirical analyses remain time consuming & applying multilevel statistical models creates serious issues. A more unified analytical framework that enriches institutional approaches with individual-level characteristics & psychologically relevant factors would also lead to a fuller understanding of deliberative processes. References. L. Reed

We find strong support for an on-line model of the candidate evaluation process that in contrast to memory-based models shows that citizens are responsive to campaign information, adjusting their overall evaluation of the candidates in response to their immediate assessment of campaign messages and events. Over time people forget most of the campaign information they are exposed to but are nonetheless able to later recollect their summary affective evaluation of candidates which they then use to inform their preferences and vote choice. These findings have substantive, methodological, and normative implications for the study of electoral behavior. Substantively, we show how campaign information affects voting behavior. Methodologically, we demonstrate the need to measure directly what campaign information people actually attend to over the course of a campaign and show that after controling for the individual's on-line assessment of campaign messages, National Election Study-type recall measures prove to be spurious as explanatory variables. Finally, we draw normative implications for democratic theory of on-line processing, concluding that citizens appear to be far more responsive to campaign messages than conventional recall models suggest.

Taking aim at decades of received wisdom, the central claim of this book is that high-quality political judgment hinges less on citizens' cognitive ability than on their willingness to temporarily suspend partisan habits and follow the 'evidence' wherever it leads. This occurs most readily when citizens experience a disjuncture between their stable political 'identities' and their contemporary 'evaluations' of party performance, a state the authors refer to as 'partisan ambivalence'.

Political scientists often describe party competition, political behavior or public preferences in left/right terms. Nevertheless, the usefulness of the concepts 'left' or 'right' is rarely explored. This study assesses whether the left/right continuum resonates with publics in developing Latin American democracies. Using data from the 2008 wave of the Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP), the authors measure variability in left/right self-placement in three Latin American countries, namely, Ecuador, Mexico, and Chile. Building on the approach developed by Alvarez and Brehm for public opinion in the United States, the authors explore (a) the extent to which voters in Ecuador, Mexico, and Chile possess predicable left/right positions and (b) whether predictability can be attributed to individual- and country-level characteristics. At the individual level, the authors show that variability decreases with political sophistication. At the country level, they find that a lower degree of programmatic party system structuration leads to higher levels of response variation. Mapping the variability in left/right preferences provides important insights into the structure of public opinion and contours of political behavior in Latin America and how they differ from those of other regions such as North America. In addition, this study brings to bear important new individual-level insights into recent political developments in the Latin American region, especially the so-called left turn in Latin American politics. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright holder.]

Political scientists often describe party competition, political behavior or public preferences in left/right terms. Nevertheless, the usefulness of the concepts "left" or "right" is rarely explored. This study assesses whether the left/right continuum resonates with publics in developing Latin American democracies. Using data from the 2008 wave of the Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP), the authors measure variability in left/right self-placement in three Latin American countries, namely, Ecuador, Mexico, and Chile. Building on the approach developed by Alvarez and Brehm for public opinion in the United States, the authors explore (a) the extent to which voters in Ecuador, Mexico, and Chile possess predicable left/right positions and (b) whether predictability can be attributed to individual- and country-level characteristics. At the individual level, the authors show that variability decreases with political sophistication. At the country level, they find that a lower degree of programmatic party system structuration leads to higher levels of response variation. Mapping the variability in left/right preferences provides important insights into the structure of public opinion and contours of political behavior in Latin America and how they differ from those of other regions such as North America. In addition, this study brings to bear important new individual-level insights into recent political developments in the Latin American region, especially the so-called left turn in Latin American politics.

Two challenges stand out in the study of deliberation: the development of appropriate methodological tools and the development of more unified analytical frameworks. On the one hand, analysing deliberative processes is demanding and time-consuming; hence we tend to have only few and non-randomly selected cases at the group or context level. In addition, the real world of deliberation presents us with a complex matrix of nested, cross-classified, and repeated speakers. This article shows that Bayesian multi-level modelling provides an elegant way to tackle these methodological problems. On the other hand, we attempt to enrich comparative institutionalism with individual characteristics and psychologically relevant variables (such as group composition). Focusing on Swiss and German parliamentary debates we show that institutional factors - in particular, consensus systems -, the gender composition of committees and plenary sessions, and age matter for the quality of deliberation. Furthermore, we also show that partisan affiliation - government or opposition status of MPs - affects deliberative quality and can refine institutional arguments. We conclude that a multi-level approach to deliberation focusing on contextual and actor-related characteristics and using Bayesian hierarchical modelling paves the way toward a more advanced understanding - and methodological handling - of deliberative processes. Adapted from the source document.

Two challenges stand out in the study of deliberation: the development of appropriate methodological tools and the development of more unified analytical frameworks. On the one hand, analysing deliberative processes is demanding and time‐consuming; hence we tend to have only few and non‐randomly selected cases at the group or context level. In addition, the real world of deliberation presents us with a complex matrix of nested, cross‐classified, and repeated speakers. This article shows that Bayesian multi‐level modelling provides an elegant way to tackle these methodological problems. On the other hand, we attempt to enrich comparative institutionalism with individual characteristics and psychologically relevant variables (such as group composition). Focusing on Swiss and German parliamentary debates we show that institutional factors ‐ in particular, consensus systems ‐, the gender composition of committees and plenary sessions, and age matter for the quality of deliberation. Furthermore, we also show that partisan affiliation ‐ government or opposition status of MPs ‐ affects deliberative quality and can refine institutional arguments. We conclude that a multi‐level approach to deliberation focusing on contextual and actor‐related characteristics and using Bayesian hierarchical modelling paves the way toward a more advanced understanding ‐ and methodological handling ‐ of deliberative processes.