Suchergebnisse

Recent years have seen an increase in empirical studies of public deliberation. This has led to important advances in thinking through issues such as who to include, how best to inform lay audiences about a particular topic, and how to maximise the perceived legitimacy of deliberation. An important issue that has not received much attention is how to define, identify, and report the results of deliberation. The conversations among individuals that occur over the course of a deliberation can be understood as a large and complex set of qualitative data. The deliberative discourse that is produced over the course of a public deliberation contains a large number of statements by participating individuals, and it is not immediately obvious how certain statements might be extracted to characterise the official results of the deliberation. In particular, public deliberation aims to guide deliberants towards collective decisions – therefore, social scientific methods of analysis that do not orient to changes in individual deliberants' positions at best only capture a part of what is going on. Further, qualitative analyses such as thematic or content analyses may give equal importance to considered and informed positions produced nearer to the end of a deliberative event and relatively uninformed and preliminary positions expressed at the beginning. While such analyses can provide important insights, they are therefore not sufficient on their own for identifying the results of deliberation. In this paper, I argue that the results of a deliberative forum are best conceptualised as constituted by at least three distinct factors: 1) the initial framing and structuring of the deliberation; 2) the facilitation process; and 3) the final (post-hoc) collation and analysis of materials by an analyst or host of the deliberation. I conclude that any meaningful and legitimate representation or synthesis of the results of deliberation should take into account the complexity of the discourse that is produced in such settings. The recent case of the BC BioLibrary Deliberation is used to illustrate and ground the discussion.

Part 1 : The purpose and function of public participation -- Part 2 : External conditions for legitimate public engagement -- Part 3 : Internal conditions for legitimate public engagement -- Part 4 : Institutional contexts of public participation -- Part 5 : Modes of and experiments in participation -- Part 6 : Understanding stakeholders and publics

Consent in deliberative theory is often construed either as the unanimous agreement to be bound by the outcome of a procedure such as a vote, or as rational consensus or fully normative unanimity, where all come to hold the same substantive position for the same reasons. In this essay we argue for a third option, a kind of tacit consent to let something stand as the position of the group. This involves not full but partial normative unanimity, in which all participants agree to let something stand as the position of the group even if they do not personally share it. For such tacit consent to meet deliberative standards, we suggest, it must be actualized by the live possibility of refusing it. The normative potentials of such consent are realized to the extent that it is achieved in a context in which each participant has an effective veto. Furthermore, the absence of opposition or dissent must follow a process in which there were real opportunities to question, object, scrutinize, and oppose. Adapted from the source document.

This study aims to build on Moore and O'Doherty's (2014) proposal to integrate deliberative voting procedures into deliberative processes. Deliberative voting has been proposed to recognize collective endpoints of deliberation and solicit key reasons from participants for supporting (or rejecting) collective decisions. This article further develops the theoretical understanding of the function of embedding voting procedures in deliberative processes. Using discursive psychological analysis, we provide an analysis of transcripts from a public deliberation event on cancer drug funding policy to gain a deeper understanding of the discursive dynamics of deliberative voting. We investigate how participants use deliberative voting as a communication tool to signal three types of disagreement: actual, nuanced, and marginal. We pay particular attention to the role of the facilitator in the deliberative voting process and the role of the voting process in shaping the outputs of the deliberation. Finally, we recommend deliberation practitioners and facilitators should engage in reflexive investigation into how power operates within deliberative voting and deliberation events broadly.

Vaginal cleansing products such as douches, sprays, wipes, powders, washes, and deodorants are part of a growing $2 billion industry in North America. Part of the appeal of these products is supposedly attaining vaginal cleanliness, which is marketed in association with product use. Although these products are promoted as healthy, medical research indicates potential health risks for some of these products (e.g. yeast infections, bacterial vaginosis, and disruption of the vaginal microbiota). Despite these risks, many women use these products. In this paper, we draw on interviews with women who use vaginal cleansing products to examine the ways in which particular portrayals of the vagina are connected with broader societal messages about female genitalia and with motivations to use vaginal cleansing practices. These portrayals include the healthy vagina, the clean vagina, and the dirty vagina. We show that although participants in our study valued both a clean vagina and a healthy vagina, when tension occurred between these two portrayals, participants prioritized vaginal cleanliness over vaginal health. We argue that this prioritization of the idealized clean vagina is connected to societal pressures of needing to attain unrealistic standards of vaginal cleanliness.

In this paper we are interested a class of issues that are especially difficult to address through public engagement processes. These are issues which should (or must) be addressed in the current period but have associated costs, benefits, and impacts that are concentrated in the future. These issues – which might be called 'future issues' – are difficult to manage democratically because any public opinions that might help guide policy decisions have not yet developed. At the same time, governments and administrative agencies are often compelled to act before the full implications of these issues are evident and before potentially affected publics are formed and aware of the implications or consequences of these developments. At best, governments and administrators can try to facilitate positive developments or prevent negative outcomes by anticipating potential concerns or conflicts associated with future issues and addressing these in the current period. We argue that small deliberative forums that combine random-selection, education and deliberation are a practical solution to this dilemma. These small forums – or minipublics – can be used to simulate discursive opinions on subjects that have not, or have not yet become topics of widespread public discourses. Our analysis is based on data from a minipublic on salmon genomics that was conducted in November 2008 by the Centre for Applied Ethics at the University of British Columbia. We argue that participating in deliberative events like this one can help citizens develop substantive opinions on technologically and temporally complex issues. We also argue that minipublics can be used to develop anticipatory maps of collectively sanctioned recommendations and discursively developed concerns or considerations. Minipublics on future issues can offer policy makers important insights into the likely parameters of public debates that have not – or have not yet – occurred.

In this paper we are interested a class of issues that are especially difficult to address through public engagement processes. These are issues which should (or must) be addressed in the current period but have associated costs, benefits, and impacts that are concentrated in the future. These issues – which might be called 'future issues' – are difficult to manage democratically because any public opinions that might help guide policy decisions have not yet developed. At the same time, governments and administrative agencies are often compelled to act before the full implications of these issues are evident and before potentially affected publics are formed and aware of the implications or consequences of these developments. At best, governments and administrators can try to facilitate positive developments or prevent negative outcomes by anticipating potential concerns or conflicts associated with future issues and addressing these in the current period. We argue that small deliberative forums that combine random-selection, education and deliberation are a practical solution to this dilemma. These small forums – or minipublics – can be used to simulate discursive opinions on subjects that have not, or have not yet become topics of widespread public discourses. Our analysis is based on data from a minipublic on salmon genomics that was conducted in November 2008 by the Centre for Applied Ethics at the University of British Columbia. We argue that participating in deliberative events like this one can help citizens develop substantive opinions on technologically and temporally complex issues. We also argue that minipublics can be used to develop anticipatory maps of collectively sanctioned recommendations and discursively developed concerns or considerations. Minipublics on future issues can offer policy makers important insights into the likely parameters of public debates that have not – or have not yet – occurred.

Women with disabilities experience high rates of violence and harassment, yet meaningful violence prevention interventions providing the opportunity to learn how to be active agents in their own self-protection are virtually non-existent. To understand why, we draw on insights from feminist disability studies to explore some of the unexamined assumptions and discourses in gender-based violence prevention research. We then apply a feminist critical discourse analysis to focus groups with blind and partially sighted women to explore their talk about violence and self-defence to understand how they portray self-protective measures, and what practices those portrayals engender. We discerned three portrayals: self-protective measures as necessary against strangers, a delimited responsibility, and an effective means to an end. These portrayals and their subsequent practices demonstrate how the participants navigate violence while living with vision loss. We also consider the implications of our analysis for future directions in gendered violence prevention research.