Suchergebnisse

This text deals with one of the attempts to make the idea of deliberative
democracy more acceptable by conducting it through the Internet. Citing the
simplicity of access and use of the Internet, many authors believe that it is
possible to join deliberative democracy with direct democracy, and thus reach
the best possible system of political decision making. It will be shown,
however, that although this idea has many advantages over classical theories
of deliberative democracy, it raises more issues than it solves. Despite
this, the idea of online deliberative democracy should not be neglected, but
rather joined with existing procedures of political decision making,
significantly improving these procedures.

Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy is the first book that brings together a wide range of methods used in the study of deliberative democracy. It offers thirty-one different methods that scholars use for theorizing, measuring, exploring, or applying deliberative democracy. Each chapter presents one method by explaining its utility in deliberative democracy research and providing guidance on its application by drawing on examples from previous studies. The book hopes to inspire scholars to undertake methodologically robust, intellectually creative, and politically relevant research. It fills a significant gap in a rapidly growing field of research by assembling diverse methods and thereby expanding the range of methodological choices available to students, scholars, and practitioners of deliberative democracy.

Recent theoretical work in deliberative democracy is analyzed, identifying three distinct ways in which such theories attempt to justify their claims for an increase in deliberation: republican, postmodern, & universalist. Each has its strengths & implications for practice. If the new deliberative theories are to move beyond a critique of liberal democracy to articulate a legitimate & practical politics, the respective benefits of each type must be brought together. 38 References. Adapted from the source document.

The growing literature on deliberative democratic practice finds that deliberation is a difficult & relatively rare form of communication. Each moment of a deliberative encounter raises significant obstacles in the path to stimulating greater intentional reflection on public issues. I explore these obstacles in the context of other empirical work in political & social psychology, small group communication, & public opinion. Taken together, these literatures explain why deliberation is difficult to achieve & sustain over time. They also suggest several rules that might assist practitioners in making deliberative democracy work better. Many of the obstacles to deliberative democracy raise questions about key theoretical constructs closely associated with deliberative democratic theory, including equality, legitimacy, autonomy, & reason. I conclude by suggesting that deliberative practitioners, empirical scholars, & theorists might gain from greater interaction. 190 References. Adapted from the source document.

This paper aims to contribute to the valuable conversation about the role of deliberative democracy in teacher education. I consider both using pedagogy that engages deliberative democracy in process, thereby enhancing teaching, and advancing deliberative democracy as a worthy goal in teacher education. I begin by looking at recent changes in society that have reshaped student goals, educational accountability, and the priority of democracy within higher education. I highlight these changes to issue a call for a thoroughgoing commitment to deliberative democracy both in theory and in practice, as a means and an end. I expand on the definition of deliberative democracy and the skills necessary to fulfilling it as they relate to the goals of teacher education. I close by turning to exemplary programs in teacher education and showcasing some smaller steps toward incorporating democratic practices and assignments.

Paperet er en diskussion af de to demokratimodeller, deliberativt og agonistisk. Det argumenteres at agonistisk demokrati overkommer en række grundlæggende vanskeligheder ved deliberativt demokrati. Men den måde som Chantal Mouffe har formuleret agonistisk demokrati på har en række problemer, særligt når det relateres til globalisering.

This paper inspects recent theoretical work in deliberative democracy. It identifies three distinct ways in which such theories attempt to justify their claims for an increase in deliberation. Each has its strengths; each has its implications for practice. If the new deliberative theories are to move beyond a critique of liberal democracy in order to articulate a legitimate and practical politics, the respective gains of these three types must be brought together.

The classic accounts of deliberative democracy are also accounts of legitimacy: 'that outcomes are legitimate to the extent they receive reflective assent through participation in authentic deliberation by all those subject to the decision in question' ( Dryzek, 2001, p. 651 ). And yet, in complex societies deliberative participation by all those affected by collective decision-making is extremely implausible. There are also legitimacy problems with the demanding procedural requirements which deliberation imposes on participants. Given these problems, deliberative democracy seems unable to deliver legitimate outcomes as it defines them.Focusing on the problem of scale, this paper offers a tentative solution using representation, a concept which is itself problematic. Along the way, the paper highlights issues with the legitimate role of experts, the different legitimate uses of statistical and electoral representation, and differences between the research and democratic imperatives driving current attempts to put deliberative principles into practice, illustrated with a case from a Leicester health policy debate. While much work remains to be done on exactly how the principles arrived at might be transformed into working institutions, they do offer a means of criticising existing deliberative practice.