From discourse quality index to deliberative transformative moments

Jaramillo, María Clara; Steiner, Jürg

doi:10.4337/9781786433862.00048

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the more frequently used methods employed to assess deliberative quality is the Discourse Quality Index (DQI), which is a theoretically grounded instrument that enables researchers to code speech acts according to key deliberative norms and quantitatively analyse these. It is based on Habermasian communicative rationality and was initially developed to assess parliamentary debates (Jaramillo & Steiner 2019), but has since been developed and applied to other contexts, including mini-publics (Caluwaerts & Reuchamps 2014;Elstub & Pomatto 2018;Gerber 2015;Gerber et al 2016;Himmelroos 2017;Pedrini 2014). This shows that the general applicability of the DQI and inter-coder reliability tests are used to demonstrate the consistency of the method.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberative Quality and Expertise: Uses of Evidence in Citizens’ Juries on Wind Farms

Drury

Escobar

Roberts

2021

Journal of Deliberative Democracy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When addressing socio-scientific wicked problems, there is a need to negotiate across and through multiple modes of evidence, particularly technical expertise and local knowledge. Democratic innovations, such as deliberative citizens’ juries, have been proposed as a means of managing these tensions and as a way of creating representative, fairer decision making. But there are questions around participatory processes, the utilization of expertise, and deliberative quality. This paper considers forms of argumentation in the 2013-2014 “Citizens’ juries on wind farm development in Scotland.” Through a critical-interpretative research methodology drawing on rhetoric and argumentation, we demonstrate that arguments relating to the topoi of the environment and health functioned as de facto reasoning, whereas arguments using social scientific evidence around economics more prominently interacted with local knowledge. The findings offer implications for process design to improve and promote deliberative quality in mini-publics and other forms of participatory engagement on socio-scientific issues.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberative Quality and Expertise: Uses of Evidence in Citizens’ Juries on Wind Farms

Drury

Escobar

Roberts

2021

Journal of Deliberative Democracy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It originated from Habermasian discourse ethics and was initially applied to parliamentary debates (Jaramillo and Steiner 2019). While there are criticisms of the DQI method with respect to how well it can be applied to all contexts and the restricted notion of deliberation it adopts (Mendonça 2015;Jaramillo and Steiner 2019), we maintain that these can be overcome by adapting the coding framework. We agree with the original DQI creators that "wherever there is deliberation of some sort and there is a record, the DQI can be applied" (Steenbergen et al 2003, 44).…”

Section: Assessing Deliberative Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Resilience of Pandemic Digital Deliberation: An Analysis of Online Synchronous Forums

Thompson¹,

Escobar²,

Hollinghurst³

et al. 2021

Javnost - The Public

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quality deliberation is essential for societies to address the challenges presented by the coronavirus pandemic effectively and legitimately. Critics of deliberative and participatory democracy are highly skeptical that most citizens can engage with such complex issues in good circumstances and these are far from ideal circumstances. The need for rapid action and decision-making is a challenge for inclusivity and quality of deliberation. Additionally, policy responses to the virus need to be even more co-ordinated than usual, which intensifies their complexity. The digitalisation of the public sphere may be seen as a further challenge to deliberating. Furthermore, these are stressful and emotional times, making a considered judgement on these issues potentially challenging. We employ a modified version of the Discourse Quality Index to assess the deliberative quality in two facilitated synchronous digital platforms to consider aspects of data use in light of COVID 19. Our study is the first to perform a comprehensive, systematic and in-depth analysis of the deliberative capacity of citizens in a pandemic. Our evidence indicates that deliberation can be resilient in a crisis. The findings will have relevance to those interested in pandemic democracy, deliberative democracy in a crisis, data use and digital public spheres.

show abstract

“…The definition and operationalization of deliberative quality are contested (Steenberger et al 2003;Jaramillo and Steiner 2019;King 2009). However, when searching for high deliberative quality, scholars usually refer to discussions that stay on topic and feature rational argumentation, reciprocity, respect, sincerity and civility (Steenberger et al 2003;Graham 2009;Kies 2010).…”

Section: Deliberative Quality In Mixed Deliberation According To Status and Gendermentioning

confidence: 99%

When citizens met politicians – the process and outcomes of mixed deliberation according to participant status and gender

Berg

Strandberg

Karv

et al. 2021

Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With deliberative democracy becoming increasingly incorporated into political processes, the instances of citizens and politicians meeting in deliberation, so-called mixed deliberations, is increasing too. While these are important steps towards more deliberative systems, the mixed deliberation setting nonetheless introduces certain risks regarding equality. Citizens and politicians have different deliberative capacities, which could affect the process of deliberation. Moreover, political inequalities such as gender gaps may be more evident in deliberations where politicians are present. This study focuses on a series of mixed deliberations in 2018 about a proposed municipal merger in Finland. Using content analysis of speech acts (N = 3404) as well as pre-and post-deliberation surveys (N = 225), we analyze patterns according to participant status (politician/citizen) and gender regarding dominance, deliberative discussion quality, and impact on internal and external efficacy. The findings show that politicians dominated the discussions and achieved a higher deliberative quality than citizens. The findings also revealed that women achieved higher deliberative quality in their speech acts.

show abstract

From discourse quality index to deliberative transformative moments

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Deliberative Quality and Expertise: Uses of Evidence in Citizens’ Juries on Wind Farms

Deliberative Quality and Expertise: Uses of Evidence in Citizens’ Juries on Wind Farms

The Resilience of Pandemic Digital Deliberation: An Analysis of Online Synchronous Forums

When citizens met politicians – the process and outcomes of mixed deliberation according to participant status and gender

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About