Suchergebnisse

Disagreement is a fundamental part of deliberative discussion, but how group members understand their disagreement can profoundly influence their actions. These conflict frames have implications for members' perception of both the issue and as their relationships. Drawing on Putnam's (1990, Brummans et al., 2008) work on conflict frames, this study examines how members of an online deliberative group framed and reframed their conflicts through personal storytelling. Members drew on different models of democracy in their stories. Some managed their disagreements through reframing their conflicts and relationships as collaborative, even in response to adversarially-framed stories. This study advances research in conflict, group discussion, and deliberative discussion and offers practical suggestions for facilitators on how to recognize, interrogate, and help groups develop productive conflict frames.

Disagreement is a fundamental part of deliberative discussion, but how group members understand their disagreement can profoundly influence their actions. These conflict frames have implications for members' perception of both the issue and as their relationships. Drawing on Putnam's (1990, Brummans et al., 2008) work on conflict frames, this study examines how members of an online deliberative group framed and reframed their conflicts through personal storytelling. Members drew on different models of democracy in their stories. Some managed their disagreements through reframing their conflicts and relationships as collaborative, even in response to adversarially-framed stories. This study advances research in conflict, group discussion, and deliberative discussion and offers practical suggestions for facilitators on how to recognize, interrogate, and help groups develop productive conflict frames.

During the past fifteen years, public deliberation has become an important focus of research, theory, and public practice. This has sometimes led to a variety of narrow conceptualizations that limit deliberation to particular forms of interaction, such as small group discussion, or to divergent conceptualizations deployed in different contexts, such as for media systems versus face-to-face discussions. To address this problem, we advance a flexible yet precise definition of deliberation that has the power to organize not only deliberation theory and research but also much of the larger body of work in political communication. As defined herein, deliberation includes both analytic and social processes and provides a unifying conceptual and critical framework for studying nearly the full range of political communication topics, including informal conversation, media and public opinion, elections, government institutional behavior, jury decision making, public meetings, and civic and community life. Using our flexible conceptualization, each of these research contexts amounts to a kind of deliberative critique and empirical analysis of public life.

During the past fifteen years, public deliberation has become an important focus of research, theory, and public practice. This has sometimes led to a variety of narrow conceptualizations that limit deliberation to particular forms of interaction, such as small group discussion, or to divergent conceptualizations deployed in different contexts, such as for media systems versus face-to-face discussions. To address this problem, we advance a flexible yet precise definition of deliberation that has the power to organize not only deliberation theory and research but also much of the larger body of work in political communication. As defined herein, deliberation includes both analytic and social processes and provides a unifying conceptual and critical framework for studying nearly the full range of political communication topics, including informal conversation, media and public opinion, elections, government institutional behavior, jury decision making, public meetings, and civic and community life. Using our flexible conceptualization, each of these research contexts amounts to a kind of deliberative critique and empirical analysis of public life.

This article introduces the special issue on Deliberative Democracy in an Era of Authoritarianism. The essay highlights the relationship between authoritarianism and democracy, and discusses concerns about the current rise in authoritarianism in political systems. It poses questions about how deliberative scholars and practitioners should respond to authoritarian political contexts and how deliberation should relate to more activist forms of civic engagement. Finally, it previews the articles in the special issue and urges future work in the field to take up ideas, questions, and challenges posed by these essays.

This article introduces the special issue on Deliberative Democracy in an Era of Authoritarianism. The essay highlights the relationship between authoritarianism and democracy, and discusses concerns about the current rise in authoritarianism in political systems. It poses questions about how deliberative scholars and practitioners should respond to authoritarian political contexts and how deliberation should relate to more activist forms of civic engagement. Finally, it previews the articles in the special issue and urges future work in the field to take up ideas, questions, and challenges posed by these essays.

Despite long-standing interest in juries and a growing body of work on public deliberation, we have a limited understanding of how often everyday juries actually engage in meaningful deliberation. This study uses deliberative theory and small group research to develop a set of research questions and hypotheses regarding how juror characteristics promote deliberation as well as how deliberation influences juror satisfaction. Examination of 267 jurors' accounts of their experiences deliberating on municipal criminal juries suggests that juries do, indeed, deliberate at a remarkably high level of competence. Results show complex relationships between juror characteristics and their levels of deliberation as well as a direct link between the quality of deliberation and juror satisfaction.

This essay provides an overview of what is currently being done in the discipline of communication studies that can advance deliberative democracy, particularly in terms of student learning, and explores how those connections could be strengthened and extended. The essay is divided into three main sections. First, a brief history of the field of communication studies is provided. Next, four questions relevant to deliberative theory and practice are introduced and the teaching and research of communication scholars that provides significant responses are examined: (1) how do we improve how citizens process information and exercise judgment?, (2) how do we best deal the differences in our increasingly diverse communities?, (3) how can we better understand the processes and outcomes of deliberation?, and (4) what are the key future directions for deliberative theory and practice? Within this section, a number of the sub-fields within communication studies that connect directly or indirectly to deliberative work are introduced. The essay concludes with a review of the limitations to these connections and a "call to action" for increased public engagement.

For the last five years, we have had the honor of serving as editors of the Journal of Public Deliberation. This issue marks the end of our editorial tenure, and we take this opportunity to both look back and think ahead. In this brief essay, we reflect on what we've seen during our time as editors. We begin by describing three important special issues that reflect the state of our field, then provide some details about how we have facilitated JPD's growth over the past five years, including publication statistics and article download rates. We conclude by discussing where the journal is now and what we anticipate for its future.

This essay provides an overview of what is currently being done in the discipline of communication studies that can advance deliberative democracy, particularly in terms of student learning, and explores how those connections could be strengthened and extended. The essay is divided into three main sections. First, a brief history of the field of communication studies is provided. Next, four questions relevant to deliberative theory and practice are introduced and the teaching and research of communication scholars that provides significant responses are examined: (1) how do we improve how citizens process information and exercise judgment?, (2) how do we best deal the differences in our increasingly diverse communities?, (3) how can we better understand the processes and outcomes of deliberation?, and (4) what are the key future directions for deliberative theory and practice? Within this section, a number of the sub-fields within communication studies that connect directly or indirectly to deliberative work are introduced. The essay concludes with a review of the limitations to these connections and a "call to action" for increased public engagement.

Public meetings are often referred to as "rituals" to denote a largely symbolic activity with little concrete meaning. This essay explores how public meeting rituals may produce very real impacts on participants and pragmatic outcomes. Whereas tangible outputs of rituals are not always evident, ritual theory suggests that participants can derive latent meaning and significant comfort from their application. Although rituals serve to reify certain norms or control behaviors, they may also reaffirm civic values and encourage group cohesion. A deeper appreciation of public meeting rituals will enable participants and officials to respond more effectively to restructured or nontraditional formats as well as better deal with the challenges of maintaining participation when rituals lose their meaning.