Decision Structure and the Problem of Scale in Deliberation

Pingree, Raymond J.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00268.x

Cited by 27 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the attention benefits of a two‐way communication context may improve memory performance (Klein & Boals, 2001) by producing greater elaboration (Eveland, 2001; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) or by creating an active motivational set (Benware & Deci, 1984), even given these benefits, deliberative theory still makes the questionable assumption that ordinary people can have nearly perfect memory under the right conditions. In deliberations about complex topics with large numbers of interrelated arguments, this assumption may be downright utopian unless participants create a record of their “decision structure” to use as a memory aid (see Pingree, 2006).…”

Section: Deliberative Discussion and Hearing All Sidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Messages Affect Their Senders: A More General Model of Message Effects and Implications for Deliberation

2007

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that in all areas of communication theory, we should give greater consideration to the possibility of expression affecting the expresser. A general model of the effects of messages on both senders and receivers is introduced, organizing and resolving contradictions in past research by distinguishing between effects of the expectation of expression, effects of message composition, and effects of a message being released to others. When applied to deliberation, the model results in several experimentally testable explanations of causal mechanisms involved in deliberation's predicted effects, a stronger basis for the distinction between deliberative and argumentative discussion, and several tentative practical recommendations for encouraging open-mindedness in deliberation.When both scholars and laypeople attempt to explain communication, they most often do so using a reception-effects paradigm in which all effects of communication are assumed to result from message reception. Communication is thought of in terms of several related metaphors, such as information flow and information transmission (Krippendorff, 1993), all of which imply that preexisting information travels in some form from one actor to another and then has its effects, if any, on arrival. This paradigm guides our thinking away from several possibilities, including that the act of expression might change the message sender, that expressed ideas often do not exist intact, if at all, in the sender's mind prior to expression, and that attention toand thus effects of-received messages may result from the expectation of being able to respond. This paper offers a general model of the effects of both sending and receiving messages, organizes the disconnected but substantial empirical evidence for its expression-effects propositions, and illustrates the model's utility by using it to generate alternative explanations of some of the predicted effects of deliberation.

show abstract

Section: Deliberative Discussion and Hearing All Sidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Messages Affect Their Senders: A More General Model of Message Effects and Implications for Deliberation

2007

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Considering how an issue such as benefits might be discussed similarly or differently across a users' Twitter timeline allows us to think about how social media are increasingly used as spaces for socio-political discussion in ways which diverge from the carefully-considered content that is expected and advocated in literature around online deliberation (e.g. Pingree, 2009).…”

Section: Congruency Vs Contrasts Of Benefits Tweets With General Twementioning

confidence: 99%

Researching with Twitter timeline data: A demonstration via “everyday” socio-political talk around welfare provision

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasingly, social media platforms are understood by researchers to be valuable sites of politically-relevant discussions. However, analyses of social media data are typically undertaken by focusing on 'snapshots' of issues using query-keyword search strategies. This paper develops an alternative, less issue-based, mode of analysing Twitter data. It provides a framework for working qualitatively with longitudinally-oriented Twitter data (user-timelines), and uses an empirical case to consider the value and the challenges of doing so. Exploring how Twitter users place ''everyday'' talk around the sociopolitical issue of UK welfare provision, we draw on digital ethnography and narrative analysis techniques to analyse 25 user-timelines and identify three distinctions in users' practices: users' engagements with welfare as TV entertainment or as a socio-political concern; the degree of sustained engagement with said issues, and; the degree to which users' tweeting practices around welfare were congruent with or in contrast to their other tweets. With this analytic orientation, we demonstrate how a longitudinal analysis of user-timelines provides rich resources that facilitate a more nuanced understanding of user engagement in everyday socio-political discussions online.

show abstract

“…Research in participatory decision-making has shown that organizational structures, which contain a high number of heterogenous members, find it harder to set up high-quality engagement structures (Börzel & Risse, 2005;Boström, 2006;Goodin, 2000). An increase in the organizational complexity that underlies the partnership can therefore imply (a) that it becomes more difficult to couple participants and decision-makers, (b) that possibilities for participation are limited, and (c) that it becomes more difficult to move participation towards justification and beyond a mere expression of opinions (Parkinson, 2003;Pingree, 2006;Walzer, 1999). Closed data partnerships have fewer organizational participants and usually depend on contractual agreements between a few actors.…”

Section: Input Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Legitimacy of Data Partnerships for Sustainable Development

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the legitimacy attached to different types of multi-stakeholder data partnerships occurring in the context of sustainable development. We develop a framework to assess the democratic legitimacy of two types of data partnerships: open data partnerships (where data and insights are mainly freely available) and closed data partnerships (where data and insights are mainly shared within a network of organizations). Our framework specifies criteria for assessing the legitimacy of relevant partnerships with regard to their input legitimacy as well as their output legitimacy. We demonstrate which particular characteristics of open and closed partnerships can be expected to influence an analysis of their input and output legitimacy.

show abstract

Decision Structure and the Problem of Scale in Deliberation

Cited by 27 publications

References 68 publications

How Messages Affect Their Senders: A More General Model of Message Effects and Implications for Deliberation

How Messages Affect Their Senders: A More General Model of Message Effects and Implications for Deliberation

Researching with Twitter timeline data: A demonstration via “everyday” socio-political talk around welfare provision

The Legitimacy of Data Partnerships for Sustainable Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About