Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics

Goodin, Robert E.; Dryzek, John S.

doi:10.1177/0032329206288152

Cited by 624 publications

(503 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

456

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the studies he discusses do not represent experiments on democratic deliberation understood as a specific form of discussion where certain standards of reasoning and argumentation are followed. So-called deliberative mini-publics (Goodin and Dryzek 2006) involve procedures enhancing democratic deliberation. Most importantly, participants of mini-publics receive balanced information on the issue and group discussions are moderated.…”

Section: Earlier Research On Enclave Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Enclave Deliberation Polarize Opinions?

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When like-minded people discuss with each other, i.e. engage in 'enclave deliberation', their opinions tend to become more extreme. This is called group polarization. A population-based experiment with a pre-test post-test design was conducted to analyze whether the norms and procedures of deliberation interfere with the mechanisms of group polarization. Based on a survey, people with either permissive or restrictive attitudes toward immigration were first identified and then invited to the experiment. The participants were randomly assigned to likeminded and mixed small-n groups. Each like-minded group consisted of only permissive or restrictive participants, whereas each mixed group consisted of four permissive and four restrictive participants. The like-minded treatment represents enclave deliberation, and the mixed treatment a 'standard' deliberative mini-public design. The main finding of our experiment is that people with anti-immigrant attitudes become more tolerant even when they deliberate in like-minded groups. Moreover, similar learning curves are observed in both treatments. Based on the results, we conclude that deliberative norms can alleviate the negative consequences of discussion in like-minded groups.

show abstract

Section: Earlier Research On Enclave Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Enclave Deliberation Polarize Opinions?

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is based on the premise that minipublics represent an 'enlightened' as opposed to 'raw' public opinion that has undergone the process of rigorous deliberation, hence deserving of serious political consideration (Fishkin 2003). Goodin and Dryzek (2006) have provided a snapshot of successful mini-publics that were able to secure 'macro-political uptake', such as the British Columbia Citizens'…”

Section: Optimistic Critical and Ambivalent Views On Mini-publicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking mini-publics to the deliberative system: a research agenda

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The systemic turn in deliberative democratic theory has shifted the focus away from seeking to design separate, internally deliberative 'minipublics' and towards a new appreciation of their external, systemic quality. Yet, so far, such accounts have not gone beyond recognising a potential for mini-publics to contribute to deliberative systems. In this paper, we argue that a systemic conceptualisation of mini-publics must recognise their fundamentally ambivalent character: Since mini-publics have the potential both to foster and to undermine systemic deliberation, it is insufficient to celebrate their positive potential alone, and vital to develop frameworks that allow for a critical evaluation of minipublics' systemic role. To this end, we propose a framework based on the systemic qualities of deliberationmaking, legitimacy-seeking and capacity-building, and conclude that key to mini-publics' quality, when judged against these criteria, is not just their own features, but the degree of 'co-development' of all system components.

show abstract

“…This may be through a variety of mechanisms, including the scientifically representative sampling of smaller groups that deliberate on behalf of some larger population and may then be able to make recommendations to an elected body (Goodin and Niemeyer, 2003;Goodin and Dryzek, 2006). Alternatively, public debate may be conceived as a key institution in its own right which enables not only better-informed preferences but also itself functions as a mechanism for their transmission to proxies within decision-making bodies (Dryzek, 2000;Bohman, 2000).…”

Section: Democratic Talkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Democracy Promotion as Foreign Policy

Elliott¹

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This book looks at democracy promotion as a form of foreign policy. Elliott asks why democracy was seen to be the answer to the 7/7 bombings in London, and why it should be promoted not in Britain, but in Pakistan. The book provides a detailed answer to these questions, examining the logic and the modes of thinking that made such a response possible through analysis of the stories we tell about ourselves: stories about time, history, development, civilisation and the ineluctable spread of democracy.Elliott argues that these narratives have become a key tool in enabling practices that differentiate selves from others, friends from enemies, the domestic from the foreign, civilisation from the barbarian. They operate with a particular conception of time and constitute a British, democratic, national identity by positing an "other" that is barbaric, alien, despotic, violent and backward. Such understandings are useful in the wake of disaster, because they leave us with something to do: danger can be managed by bringing certain people and places up-to-date. However, this book shows that there are other stories to be told, and that it is possible to read stories about history against the grain, and author alternative, less oppressive versions.Providing a genealogy drawing on material from colonial and postcolonial Britain and Pakistan, including legislation, political discourse, popular culture and government projects, this book will be of interest to scholars and students focusing on democracy promotion, genealogy, critical border studies, poststructural international relations, postcolonial politics, discourse analysis, identity/subjectivity, and the "war on terror".Cathy Elliott is a Senior Teaching Fellow at the School of Public Policy, University College London. She previously worked as a development manager in Pakistan. Her research interests include poststructural international relations; time, temporality and history; politics and aesthetics; and feminism and gender. InterventionsEdited by: Jenny Edkins, Aberystwyth University and Nick Vaughan-Williams, University of WarwickThe Series provides a forum for innovative and interdisciplinary work that engages with alternative critical, post-structural, feminist, postcolonial, psychoanalytic and cultural approaches to international relations and global politics. In our first 5 years we have published 60 volumes.We aim to advance understanding of the key areas in which scholars working within broad critical post-structural traditions have chosen to make their interventions, and to present innovative analyses of important topics. Titles in the series engage with critical thinkers in philosophy, sociology, politics and other disciplines and provide situated historical, empirical and textual studies in international politics.For a full list of available titles please visit https://www.routledge.com/series/INT.The most recent titles in this series are: Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Refugees in Extended Exile © 2017 Cathy Elli...

show abstract

Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics

Cited by 624 publications

References 14 publications

Does Enclave Deliberation Polarize Opinions?

Does Enclave Deliberation Polarize Opinions?

Linking mini-publics to the deliberative system: a research agenda

Democracy Promotion as Foreign Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About