A Conceptual Definition and Theoretical Model of Public Deliberation in Small Face-to-Face Groups

Abstract

Although scholars have begun to study face-to-face deliberation on public issues, "deliberation" has no clear conceptual definition and only weak moorings in larger theories. To address these problems, this essay integrates diverse philosophical and empirical works to define deliberation and place it in a broader theoretical context. Public deliberation is a combination of careful problem analysis and an egalitarian process in which participants have adequate speaking opportunities and engage in attentive listening or dialogue that bridges divergent ways of speaking and knowing. Placed in the meta-theoretical framework of structuration theory (Giddens, 1984), deliberation is theorized to exist at the center of a homeostatic loop, in which deliberative practice reinforces itself. A review of theory and research on the causes and effects of deliberation leads us to develop this structurational conceptualization into the self-reinforcing model of deliberation. This model posits that public deliberation is more likely to occur when discussion participants perceive potential common ground, believe deliberation is an appropriate mode of talk, possess requisite analytic and communication skills, and have sufficient motivation. Deliberation directly reinforces participants' deliberative habits and skills, and it indirectly promotes common ground and motivation by broadening participants' public identities and heightening their sense of political efficacy.

Studying ‘Everyday Political Talk’ in the Deliberative System

“…Thus, deliberation is an exercise in rational 'reason giving.' This exercise, which is how most political philosophers and theorists conceptualize democratic deliberation, is certainly much more rigorous than is the everyday informal discussion about public affairs practiced by the British and American citizens in our research ; see also Burkhalter et al, 2002;Walsh, 2004). We can best characterize what these ordinary citizens actually do, and what our research programs can therefore investigate, as 'discussions' or 'everyday talks,' occasionally deliberative but more typically unstructured, spontaneous, and without clear goals (see Walzer, 1990;.…”

The 'Wildavsky Heuristic': The Cultural Orientation of Mass Political Opinion

“…14 A number of public deliberation programs have recorded the kinds of identity and attitude changes hypothesized in deliberative theory (Burkhalter et al 2002). For examples of such emotional experiences at deliberative forums, see Melville et al 2005, 37-39, 45-51;Charles et al 2005, 66;Fishkin and Farrar 2005, 68-70).…”

Computer-Supported Argument Maps as a Policy Memory

“…Placing a premium on comments that are well-thought out also raises the bar of participation (Fishkin, 2000;Burkhalter, Gastil and Kelshaw, 2002). Not everyone agrees that deliberation alone can deliver sound policy (Sanders, 1997;Dryzek 2000;Parkinson 2003).…”