Did They Deliberate? Applying an Evaluative Model of Democratic Deliberation to the Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review

Knobloch, Katherine R.; Gastil, John; Reedy, Justin; Walsh, Katherine Cramer

doi:10.1080/00909882.2012.760746

Cited by 88 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These revelations lend ammunition to interventional efforts, such as FactCheck.org, that work to dispel political misinformation, as well as explicitly deliberative democratic reforms that seek to provide voters with more straightforward issue analysis or voting cues (Gastil, ). In particular, the aforementioned Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review (Knobloch et al., ) provides an ideal opportunity to investigate whether efforts by citizens’ peers to provide neutral information can raise voters’ issue‐relevant knowledge levels, in spite of their tendency toward cultural and ideological filtering—or even reactivity (Nyhan and Reifler, ). Such a finding would not contradict our model so much as put a scope condition on it by showing a carefully constructed electoral circumstance in which voters can bring themselves to deliberate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Voters Become Misinformed: An Investigation of the Emergence and Consequences of False Factual Beliefs*

Reedy

Wells

Gastil

2014

Social Science Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Voters develop not only different opinions about politics but also different sets of empirical beliefs. It is less clear how falsifiable beliefs take hold. In particular, it remains unclear as to whether news and campaign messages, moderated by political knowledge, drive the process, or whether deep‐seated values principally sway voters' acceptance of factual claims. These contrasting views point to a set of testable hypotheses that we use to refine a model of ideologically‐biased empirical belief generation, which we call “knowledge distortion.” Methods We conduct an analysis of survey data on three ballot measures in Washington State, testing hypothesized relationships between voters' empirical beliefs about political issues, news and campaign messages, political knowledge, political values, and partisanship, as well as vote choices on the ballot measures. Results Our analysis reveals that voters' values and partisanship had the strongest associations with distorted beliefs, which then influenced voting choices. Self‐reported levels of exposure to media and campaign messages played a surprisingly limited role. Conclusion Our findings provide further evidence of politically motivated factual misperceptions on political issues, which have an independent effect on voters' ballot decisions. These misperceptions do not seem to be driven by news media and campaign messages, suggesting that citizens may be generating relevant empirical beliefs based on their underlying political values and ideology.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Voters Become Misinformed: An Investigation of the Emergence and Consequences of False Factual Beliefs*

Reedy

Wells

Gastil

2014

Social Science Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…30,31 Structural elements can include information and choices, materials, tasks, sampling and group composition. 32 Examples of procedural aspects of quality include respectful treatment, civility and reasongiving. Outcomes can include changes in participants' knowledge or opinions, decisions made and participants' views of the group decision, including trust in decision makers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating community deliberations about health research priorities

Goold¹,

Danis

Abelson

et al. 2019

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Engaging underrepresented communities in health research priority setting could make the scientific agenda more equitable and more responsive to their needs. Objective Evaluate democratic deliberations engaging minority and underserved communities in setting health research priorities. Methods Participants from underrepresented communities throughout Michigan (47 groups, n = 519) engaged in structured deliberations about health research priorities in professionally facilitated groups. We evaluated some aspects of the structure, process, and outcomes of deliberations, including representation, equality of participation, participants’ views of deliberations, and the impact of group deliberations on individual participants’ knowledge, attitudes, and points of view. Follow‐up interviews elicited richer descriptions of these and also explored later effects on deliberators. Results Deliberators (age 18‐88 years) overrepresented minority groups. Participation in discussions was well distributed. Deliberators improved their knowledge about disparities, but not about health research. Participants, on average, supported using their group's decision to inform decision makers and would trust a process like this to inform funding decisions. Views of deliberations were the strongest predictor of these outcomes. Follow‐up interviews revealed deliberators were particularly struck by their experience hearing and understanding other points of view, sometimes surprised at the group's ability to reach agreement, and occasionally activated to volunteer or advocate. Conclusions Deliberations using a structured group exercise to engage minority and underserved community members in setting health research priorities met some important criteria for a fair, credible process that could inform policy. Deliberations appeared to change some opinions, improved some knowledge, and were judged by participants worth using to inform policymakers.

show abstract

“…Substantial gaps between deliberative theory and practice are widely acknowledged (Mutz, ; Thompson, ). One productive means of bridging theory and practice is to evaluate whether deliberative practice sufficiently meets criteria for deliberation developed from normative theory (e.g., Knobloch, Gastil, Reedy, & Cramer Walsh, ; Nabatchi, Gastil, Weiksner, & Leighninger, ). DI inverts this relationship.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Problem Solving: Reconceptualizing the Work of Public Deliberation as Deliberative Inquiry

Carcasson

Sprain

2015

Commun Theor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article introduces deliberative inquiry (DI), a practical theory designed to guide the work of deliberative practitioners working in their local communities to better address wicked problems by improving the quality of public discourse. DI reconceptualizes the work of public deliberation as sparking and sustaining a unique form of inquiry suited to addressing wicked problems. DI moves from a linear event‐focused model where deliberation produces refined public opinion and decision outcomes to using deliberative principles to guide a cyclical learning process. DI seeks to improve community decision making by focusing on obstacles to deliberative engagement, deliberative tensions inherent to wicked problems, and resources for collaborative action. Understanding of these elements is refined throughout the 4 tasks of the deliberative cycle.

show abstract

Did They Deliberate? Applying an Evaluative Model of Democratic Deliberation to the Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review

Cited by 88 publications

References 26 publications

How Voters Become Misinformed: An Investigation of the Emergence and Consequences of False Factual Beliefs*

How Voters Become Misinformed: An Investigation of the Emergence and Consequences of False Factual Beliefs*

Evaluating community deliberations about health research priorities

Beyond Problem Solving: Reconceptualizing the Work of Public Deliberation as Deliberative Inquiry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About