Rethinking Democratic Deliberation: The Limits and Potential of Citizen Participation

Rosenberg, Shawn W.

doi:10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300073

Cited by 52 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“… See Bryan (2004); for qualitative analyses, seeRosenberg (2007) and CramerWalsh (2007); seeGrunenfelder and Baechtiger (2007) for legislatures. 4 Individual-level differences across genders are often small and inconsistent in comparison to large variances within gender(Aries 1998;Sapiro 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

C an men and women have equal levels of voice and authority in deliberation or does deliberation exacerbate gender inequality? Does increasing women's descriptive representation in deliberation increase their voice and authority? We answer these questions and move beyond the debate by hypothesizing that the group's gender composition interacts with its decision rule to exacerbate or erase the inequalities. We test this hypothesis and various alternatives, using experimental data with many groups and links between individuals' attitudes and speech. We find a substantial gender gap in voice and authority, but as hypothesized, it disappears under unanimous rule and few women, or under majority rule and many women. Deliberative design can avoid inequality by fitting institutional procedure to the social context of the situation.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this paper, we discuss both the process and policy outcome of the participatory experience in Gmunden. This is relevant because public participation requires well designed procedures and methods in order to avoid inefficiencies such as reproduced power distributions or prolonged planning processes [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. We build on previous research [1,13] that demonstrates the usefulness and applicability of participatory processes to forge a compromise solution for disaster risk reduction measures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Participatory Process to Develop a Landslide Warning System: Paradoxes of Responsibility Sharing in a Case Study in Upper Austria

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During a participatory process in Gmunden, Austria, the organizational and responsibility-sharing arrangements for a landslide warning system proved to be contested issues. While questions on the warning system technology and the distribution of information, including the alarm for evacuation, could be resolved with the support of experts, controversies arose on the financial and legal responsibilities that ensure long-term and effective monitoring for the protection of the landslide-prone community. This paper examines how responsibilities can be shared among the residents, experts, and public authorities during the design and operation of landslide warning systems. In particular, we discuss the outcome and implications of three stakeholder workshops where participants deliberated on warning-system options that, in turn, were based on a discourse analysis of extensive stakeholder interviews. The results of the case study show that an end-user orientation requires the consideration of stakeholder worldviews, interests, and conflicts. Paradoxically, the public did not fully support their own involvement in the maintenance and control of the warning system, but the authorities promoted shared responsibility. Deliberative planning does not then necessarily lead to responsibility sharing, but it proved effective as a platform for information and for shared ownership in the warning system.

show abstract

“…Problems may derive from the representativeness of the participants, the selection bias (concerning who is willing and able to participate and how stakeholders are chosen), the resource and power imbalances between actors, the time and resources needed from researchers or mediators to understand and deal with fairness issues, the difficulties in finding impartial facilitators, etc. As a result, the inclusion of stakeholders may have the adverse effects to slow decision making, or to facilitate preferred solutions of already powerful actors rather than to foster democratic decision making processes [13][14][15][16][17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Approaches for the Integration of Stakeholder Perspectives in Environmental Decision Making

Scolobig

Lilliestam

2016

Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Including stakeholder perspectives in environmental decision making is in many countries a legal requirement and is widely seen as beneficial as it can help increase decision legitimacy, likelihood of implementation, and quality of the outcome. Whereas the theoretical literature on stakeholder engagement is large, less attention has been devoted to comparing and discussing different methodological approaches. Here, we compare three approaches-multi-criteria analysis, plural rationality theory, and scenario construction-that include stakeholders' perspectives in environmental decision making. We find differences between the approaches concerning the assumptions about stakeholder rationality and whether experts and/or stakeholders are in charge of framing the problem. Further differences concern the type of data input from stakeholders and how it is used by the experts, as well as the role of stakeholders and whether they are involved early-already for identifying options-or later in the process, for evaluating or ranking alternatives analyzed by the experts. The choice of approach thus predetermines the type and depth of stakeholder engagement. No approach is "better" than another, but they are suited for different problems and research aims: the choice of the approach, however, has a large impact on the results.

show abstract

Rethinking Democratic Deliberation: The Limits and Potential of Citizen Participation

Cited by 52 publications

References 18 publications

Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation

Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation

A Participatory Process to Develop a Landslide Warning System: Paradoxes of Responsibility Sharing in a Case Study in Upper Austria

Comparing Approaches for the Integration of Stakeholder Perspectives in Environmental Decision Making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About