EmpiricalResearchonDeliberativeDemocracy:AReviewofthe

Literature

Abstract

Thispaperreviewstherecentliteratureonempiricalresearchintodeliberativedecision

making.FollowingThompson,itdistinguishesbetweentheconceptualcriteria,

evaluativestandardsandempiricalconditionsassociatedwithgoodoreffective

deliberation.Itfindsthatthequestionofempiricalconditionshasbeenapproachedfrom

threedistinctdirections.Inonestreamintheliterature,whichitcallsthebehavioural

proceduralstream,workhasfocusedonproducinganempiricaldefinitionof

deliberationwhichpermitsanassessmentofthedegreetowhichdeliberationis

occurring.Asecondstreamintheliterature,thefeasibilitycapacitystream,hasinvolved

seekingevidencetosupport(orundermine)theclaimsofnormativetheoryabout

deliberationasasocialprocess.Athirdstream,theinstitutionalenvironmentalor

boundaryconditionsstream,involvesconsideringtheeffectondiscursivepracticeofa

seriesofcontingentfactorsexternaltotheprocessofdeliberationitself.Notablebyits

almostcompleteabsence,however,isanyworkthataimstoevaluatethetechnical

effectivenessofdeliberativepolicyanddecisionmakingrelativetoothertypesof

process,democraticorotherwise.

Introduction

Inthispaperwereviewaselectionoftherecentliteraturereportingtheresultsof

empiricalresearchintodeliberativedecisionmaking.Thiscurrentofresearchappearsto
bearesponsetotheincreasingincidenceofandinterestinparticipatoryapproachesto

governanceandpolicydecisionmaking.Theseapproachesareinturnaresponsetothe

perceptionthatexistingmodesofsocialandpoliticalgovernancelacklegitimacy.Hartz

KarpandBriand,forexample,arguethatinadvancedsocieties,

thepublichasunquestioninglyhandedovermuchofthenecessarydecision

makingtoexperts,towhomimplicitlywehaveassignedtheabilitytodetermine

whatcountsasknowledgeandwhatdoesnot.Thuspolicymakerstooreadily

accepttheirownviewsassound,buttreattheviewsofordinarycitizensevenin

regardtomattersproperlywithintheirrealmofexpertise,suchasvaluesand

prioritiesasmerepreferenceandopinion1

Inasimilarvein,Wagenaarsuggeststhat

theincreasingtechnicalcomplexityofsocietalsectors,incombinationwitha

complexcrosscurrentofadministrativeideologiesthatfavorexpertness,

managerialefficacy,andallocativeefficiency,hasresultedinratherahigh

handed,technocraticstyleofpolicymakinginwhichadministratorsandexternal

expertsclaimtherighttomanageentiresocietalsectorsandinwhichthecitizens

whoareatthereceivingendofthesepoliciesareconsequentlydisenfranchised

fromthegovernanceoftheirownenvironment.2

Politicalparticipationcantakeadizzyingarrayofdifferentforms,butHuitemaandhis

colleagueshaveusefullyparsedtheseintothosearisingfromapluralistdiscourseand

thosethatemergefromthediscourseofdeliberation.3Theemphasisintheformercaseis

2
onparticipationasameansofguaranteeingtheeffectiverepresentationofindividuals

andgroupsinapoliticalprocessbasedonbalancingcompetingvaluesandinterests.In

thelattercase,bycontrast,theemphasisisontheidentificationandarticulationofa

singleauthenticcollectiveinterestRousseausgeneralwillasopposedtothemere

willofallandtheassemblyofareasonedargumentforthepursuitofaparticular

courseofsocialorcollectiveactioninthelightofthatsharedinterest.4Accordingto

Baccaro&Papadakis,theprincipalclaimoftheadvocatesofdeliberativeparticipation

isthatitproducesnotjustarichertextureofdemocracybutalsomoreeffectivepublic

policy.5Onemightaddthat,particularlyforthoseauthorswhoadoptbroadly

Habermasiantheoreticalapproaches,theincreasedeffectivenessofpolicyoutcomesis

heldtobeadirectresultofthedemocraticnatureofthedecisionmakingprocess.

Whilethereissomedoubtaboutwhetherasharpdistinctionbetweenpluralistand

deliberativeformsofparticipationcanbemaintainedinpractice,inthisreviewwewill

neverthelessconfineourselvestoconsideringthoseformsofdemocraticparticipation

that,atleastasaregulatoryideal,aimtoseekconsensusnotjustonactionbutonthe

technicalandnormativereasonsforaction.Thebooksandpapersreferencedinthe

reviewwereidentifiedviaatrawlofthewebsitesofthemainacademicresearchcentres

andprincipalfiguresknowntobeinvolvedinworkondeliberativedemocracy,together

withacloselyfocusedsearchofelectronicjournals.6Thesearchrequestedarticleswith

thewordsdeliberationordeliberativetogetherwiththewordempiricalinthetitle

orabstract.Intheendatotalofaround75journalarticlesandworkingpaperswere

reviewed.Therelativelynarrowoverallsearchstrategymeansthatmostworkonnon

deliberativeformsofparticipatorygovernanceanddemocracyislikelytohavebeen

3
excluded.

WhatisDeliberativeDemocracy?

Thompsonsuggeststhattherearethreeelementsintheanalysisofpoliticaldeliberation

thatneedtobedistinguished:conceptualcriteria,evaluativestandards,andempirical

conditions.Conceptualcriteriastipulatewhatisnecessaryforapracticetocountas

deliberation.Evaluativestandardsspecifywhatcountsasgood(orbetter)deliberation.

Empiricalconditionsindicatewhatisnecessaryforproducinggooddeliberation(orless

strongly,whatmaycontributetoproducinggooddeliberation).7Wewilluse

Thompsonsanalyticalmodeltostructurethediscussionthatfollows.

ConceptualCriteria

While,asRosenbergpointsout,8workintheangloamericanpoliticalsciencetradition,

particularlythatofJohnRawls,hasbeenofgreatsignificanceinthedevelopmentof

workondeliberativedemocracy,thewritingofJrgenHabermasseemstohavebeenthe

mostimportantcatalystfortheincreasinginterestindeliberationapparentfromthemid

1990s.Thisisreflectedintherelativelynarrowrangeofconceptualdefinitionsof

deliberativedemocracythatfeatureintheliterature.AsSchneiderhanandKhanpoint

out,9almostwithoutexceptionthesedefinitionsfocusonreasongivingand

inclusiveness,therebytakinguptheessentialsofHabermassconceptofcommunicative

actionandhisdiscourseprinciple.Thusnormativetheoriesofdeliberativedemocracy

emphasizecommunicationaboutpreferencesratherthantheaggregationoffixed

preferencesviaindividualchoiceorvoting.10Normativetheoryalsoproposesthat

democraticlegitimacyresidesintheright,abilityandopportunityofthosesubjecttoa
4
collectivedecisiontoparticipateindeliberationaboutthecontentofthatdecision.11

Althoughtherenosuggestionintheliteraturethatinclusivenessisthelessimportantof

thetwoprinciples,itiscertainlylessuniquelycharacteristicofdeliberationthanreason

giving.AsThompsonputsit,themostimportantdistinguishingcharacteristicof

deliberation,ismutualjustificationpresentingandrespondingtoreasonsintendedto

justifyapoliticaldecision.12

Evaluativestandards

Intheliteraturetheprimaryevaluativestandardsappliedtoreasongivingare:

thatreasonsarecouchedintermsofthecommongood,includingthegoodthat

arisesfrompermittingindividualsorgroupstopursuetheirparticularinterestsin

certaincircumstances;

thatreasonsareusedsincerelyand/ortruthfully;and

thatthereisalogicalrelationbetweenagivenreasonandthepreferenceit

supports.13

Asappliedtotheconceptofinclusiveness,wefindstandardsthatevaluatenotsomuch

whethertherelevantsubjectsortheirrepresentativesareformallyinvolvedinthe

deliberativeprocess,butthedegreetowhichparticipantsindeliberationaregenuinely

abletocontributetothediscussionandtohavetheirvoicesheard.Thuswehavethe

standardsof:

5
 participationinthesenseoftheavailabilityofsubstantiveopportunitiesto

contributetothediscussion;

respectfortheargumentsandtheperspectiveofotherparticipants;and

opennesstochangingpreferencesinresponsetotheforceofthebetter

argument.14

Intruththislaststandardappliestobothreasongivingandinclusiveness.Reasongiving

obviouslylosesitseffectivenessasameansofreachingagreementthemoreunwilling

participantsaretobepersuadedawayfromtheirstartingpositions.Itisalsotruethatitis

pointlesstoincludeawiderangeofparticipantsinadeliberativeprocessifthereisno

possibilitythattheymightchangetheirmindsinresponsetothedifferentperspectives

broughttothediscussionbyothers.

Empiricalconditions

Thequestionoftheempiricalconditionsassociatedwithgoodoreffectivedeliberation

hasbeenapproachedfromthreedistinctdirections.Inonestreamintheliterature,which

wecancallthebehaviouralproceduralstream,workhasfocusedonproducingan

empiricaldefinitionofdeliberationwhichpermitsanassessmentofthedegreetowhich

deliberationisoccurring.Theconditionsspecifiedtendtobeafairlystraightforward

operationalisationoftheevaluativestandardswehavejustdiscussed,andthusfocuson

theattitudesanddiscursivebehaviourofparticipantsaswellasthelogicandstructureof

theargumentstheypropose.Inthisstream,thepossibilityofdeliberationasadistinct

modeofdiscursiveinteractionisnotinquestion.Rather,specifyingtheempirical

6
conditionsfordeliberationismerelyanintermediatesteptowardsansweringmore

substantivequestionsabouttheoutcomesandeffectsofdeliberation.

Asecondstreamintheempiricalresearchliterature,thefeasibilitycapacitystream,has

involvedseekingevidencetosupport(orundermine)theclaimsofnormativetheory

aboutdeliberationasasocialprocess.Researcherscontributingtothisstreamdonot

assumethatdeliberationisalways(or,insomecases,ever)possible,andtendtobe

concernedwiththesocialpsychologyofdiscursivepracticeandwithpowerrelations

arisingfromdifferencesofclass,sexandethnicity.Theyareinterestedinwhether

supposedlydeliberativeinteractionshavetheclaimedeffectconsensus,legitimacyand

soonaswellastheextenttowhichtheeffectsofsuchinteractionscanbetracedto

socialandpsychologicalprocessesthatarecoherentwithnormativetheory.

Athirdstreamintheempiricalliterature,theinstitutionalenvironmentalorboundary

conditionsstream,isslightlydifferentinthatitoverlapswithbothoftheother

approachesandispotentiallycoherentwitheither.Thisapproachinvolvesconsidering

theeffectondiscursivepracticeofaseriesofcontingentfactorsexternaltotheprocess

ofdeliberationitself.

Thebehaviouralproceduralstream

Thediscursivebehaviourofparticipantshasbeenanimportantfocusofempirical

researchondeliberationthataimstoassessthedeliberativenessofexistingpolitical

institutionsandprocesses.Forexample,Holzingerhasanalysedthedebateinthe

Germanparliamentonthecontentiousissueofstemcellresearch.15Herwork,basedon

theanalysisoftranscriptsofthesessionsinquestion,seekstoassesstherelative
7
importanceofarguingandbargaininginthedebate.ThislatterdistinctionisbasedonJ

LAustenandJohnSearlesworkonspeechacts.Arguinginvolvesspeechactssuchas

claiming,establishing,assuming,asking,justifying,contradictingandjudging,whereas

bargaininginvolvesanentirelydifferentsetofdiscursivepracticeslikedemanding,

offering,promising,threatening,acceptingandrejecting.WhatHolzingersanalysis

shows,however,isthatthisdistinctionisnotadequatetotheidentificationof

deliberativebehaviour.Assheherselfconcedes,therewasagreatdealofarguingand

verylittlebargaininginthedebate,aswouldbeexpectedfromthenatureoftheissuein

question,butverylittleofthisargumentwasdeliberative.Rather,nondialogical

rhetoricwasthedominantformofspeech,noconsensuswasreachedandtheissuewas

ultimatelyresolvedbyvoting.

ConoverandSearingcomeatthequestionofidentifyingdeliberationrathermore

directlyintheiranalysisofpoliticaltalk.16Analysingthetranscriptsoffocusgroupsand,

lessconventionally,thetextofletterspublishedinBritishnewspapers,theauthorsseek

toassesstheextenttowhichpoliticaltalksatisfiestheirversionoftheempirical

conditionsfordeliberation:reciprocity,publicity,nontyrannyandequality.They

concludethatingeneral,thiskindoftalkfallswellshortofthedeliberativeideal:

Althoughcitizensarecommittedtoreciprocityinprinciple,inpracticetheysometimes

finditdifficulttorespecttheirfellowcitizens.Publicdiscussionsoccurinfrequently,for

mosteverydaytalkisrelativelyprivateinnature.Finally,whileeverydaytalktypically

involvesweakcontestation,italsoreflectsinequalitiesinsociety,particularlywhen

politicaldiscussionbecomesmorepublic.17

8
Perhapsthebestknownattempttoprovideanempiricaltestfordeliberationisthe

workofSteinerandhiscolleaguesattheUniversityofBerne.18Thiswork,whichaims

toevaluatethequalityofdebateinnationallegislatureswithrespecttotheevaluative

standardsofdeliberation,revolvesaroundthediscoursequalityindexorDQI.The

DQIprovidesameasureofthedeliberativenessofthediscursivebehaviouroflegislators

alongthefourprincipaldimensionsofparticipation,justification(dividedintoleveland

contentofjustification),respect(dividedintorespectforothergroups,respectforgroup

interestsanddemandsandrespectforcounterarguments)andconstructivepolitics

(consensusbuilding).Participationreflectstheopportunityaffordedtolegislatorsto

speakwithoutinterruption.Justificationisameasureofthesophisticationwithwhich

argumentsaregroundedandofthedegreetowhichargumentsarecouchedintermsof

thecommongoodasopposedtogroupinterests.Respectmeasuresthedegreetowhich

participantsinterventionsreflectnegativeorpositiveattitudestoopposinggroups,

interestsandarguments.Finally,constructivepoliticsisameasureoftheextenttowhich

legislatorsmakeeffortstofinduniversallyacceptablesolutionsasopposedtosimply

tryingtoinsistthattheirparticularviewprevail.

TheDQIframeworkisarguablythemostmethodologicallysophisticatedapproachtoan

operationalizationoftheevaluativestandardsfordeliberation,despiteits(deliberate)

omissionofanymeansofassessingthesincerityortruthfulnessofparticipants.

However,evenifitwerepossibleeffectivelytoaddressthislacuna,theDQIwould

remainatooloflimitedempiricalvaluebecauseinitselfitcanshednolightontwo

crucialissues:first,whetherhighqualitydeliberationhasagreatertendencytoproduce

policyconsensus;and,second,whetherthepoliciesanddecisionsthatemergefrom

9
deliberativeprocessesareinsomesensesuperiortothosearrivedatviamoretraditional

methods.19Wewillreturntothesequestionsinamoment.

Finallyinthissection,itisworthmentioningtheentirelydifferentmeansofidentifying

deliberationproposedbyNanzandSteffek.20Theyarguethatintheparticularcaseof

internationalgovernanceinstitutions,inwhichanykindofmassparticipationis

impossibleforpragmaticreasons,wecanneverthelessevaluatethedeliberativequality

ofdecisionmakingprocessesbyaskingifthereisawarrantedpresumptionthatpublic

opinionisformedonthebasisofadequateinformationandrelevantreasons,andthat

thosewhoseinterestsareinvolvedhaveanequalandeffectiveopportunitytomaketheir

owninterests(andtheirreasonsforthem)known.21NanzandSteffeks

operationalisationofthisquestioninvolvesassessingthedegreetowhichcivilsociety

organisations(CSOs)areabletoaccessandinfluencethepolicyanddecisionmaking

proceduresofinternationalorganisations.Theyproposefourcriteria:theaccessgranted

toCSOs(noaccess,observerstatusortherighttospeakinmeetingsandsubmit

documentation);thedegreeoftransparencyandaccesstoinformation(noaccessto

documentation,accesstobackgrounddocumentationorfullaccesstobackgroundand

policydocuments);theresponsivenessofinternationalorganisationstostakeholder

concerns(CSOconcernsandpositionsnotdiscussedatall,stateactorsjustifyproposals

withreferencetoconcernsvoicedbyCSOsorCSOconcernsbecomepartofthe

agenda);andfinallythedegreetowhichpolicyprocessesareactivelyinclusive(whether

ornotinstitutionalarrangementsaremadetoensuretheinclusionofallrelevantCSOs).

10
Thefeasibilitycapacitystream

Seriousdoubtshavebeenexpressedaboutthecapacityofindividualstodeliberateina

waythatmeetsthecriteriaestablishedinnormativetheory.AsRyfeputsit,weneedto

askwhetherdeliberativedemocracycanworkatthefundamentallevelofhuman

reasoning.22Thereareatleastthreeaspectstothisquestion:psychological,sociological

and(forwantofabetterword)educational.

Rosenberg,drawingbothonhisownresearchandareviewofotherrelevantpsychology

literature,arguesthatonlyasmallminorityofindividualsdemonstratedeliberative

rationality,thatistherequisitecapacitytoreflectontheirpreferencesandorganizethem

withregardtohigherordergoalsoroverarchinglifeplans...Similarlyonlyasmall

minorityofpeopledemonstratesdeliberativereasonablenessandthustakesthe

perspectiveofanotherandmakesargumentsthatarepersuasiveinhisterms.23A

numberofotherauthorsarguethatopinionorpreferenceformationisonlyinfrequently

amatterofsystematicreasoning,moreofteninvolvingaratherlesscognitively

demandingprocessofrespondingtoheuristiccues24orassessingnewinformationfor

itscompatibilitywithexistingbeliefsandvaluesorconceptualframes.25Individuals

mayalso change or adopt new opinions and preferences as a result of groupthink, a

process in which likeminded or cohesive individuals either mutually reinforce their

existing perspectives or engage in strong consensus seeking behaviour so that it

overwhelms any potentially dissenting issues.26

Scepticismaboutdeliberationhasalsoarisenfromworkinsociology.Threeparticular

problemshavebeenidentifiedthat,apriori,seemlikelytohaveanimpactonthe

11
possibilityofdeliberation.Thefirstisthatthecapacitytodeliberateandtheabilityto

haveideasandopinionstakenseriouslyisunevenlydistributedamongdifferent

membersofsociety.Forexample,Sandersarguesthatnotonlydotheeducationand

culturalcapitalassociatedwiththeabilitytoargueacaseconvincinglyvarywith

income,butinequalitiesaresodeeplyingrainedinoursocietiesthatthesimplefactof

being,say,ablackwomanmeansthatyouropinionislikelytocarrylessweightin

discussion.27Hence,theargumentgoes,ratherthanpermittingparticipationonanequal

basisregardlessofsex,race,classandsoforth,deliberationmayactuallytendto

reinforceexistingstructuresofpowerandinequality.Asecondproblem,closelyrelated

tothefirst,isthatdeliberationisitselfaculturallyloadedprocedurethatprivilegescalm,

dispassionatemodesofdiscourseoverovertlyemotivebut(arguably)equallyvalid

formsofexpressionlikestorytellingortestimony.Participantsfromsocialbackgrounds

orculturescharacterizedbytheselessrationalmodesofexpressionarethusprevented

frommakingtheirvoicesheard.Finally,thedeliberativeemphasisonconsensusand

compromise,thesearchforwhatunitesratherthanwhatdivides,putsatriskthe

expressionofdifferenceandparticularity.AsSandersputsit,Insettingswherethereare

grossinequalitiesinpowerandstatus,callingforcompromisemaybeperilouslycloseto

suppressingthechallengingperspectivesofmarginalisedgroups.28

Ifthesepsychologicalandsociologicalcritiquesarewellfoundedandthequestionis

clearlyanempiricalratherthanatheoreticalonethenthebasicconditionsfor

deliberationcannotbemet.Evenwhereanapparentlyconsensualdecisionemergesfrom

discussion,itcannotbeassumedtohavetheprivilegedepistemicandnormativestatus

thatinprincipleaccruestotheoutcomesofdeliberativeprocesses.Theprincipal

12
differencebetweenthepsychologicallyandsociologicallygroundedcritiques,other

thanthefactthatthereisrathermoreconcreteevidencefortheformer,isthatthe

psychologistsaremoreoptimisticaboutthepossibilityofcorrectingtheproblem.

AlthoughNeblohassuggestedthatthereisunderappreciatedroomformutual

accommodationamongdeliberativetheoristsonquestionsofemotion,rhetoricaand

alternatecommunicationforms,29mostofthesociologicalcriticsofdeliberationseem

unwillingtoacceptthatanyconceivableinterventionwouldcorrectthedifficultiesthey

identify.30Ontheotherhand,DelliCarpiniandhiscolleagues,arguethatalthoughthe

researchevidenceshowsthatsuccessfuldeliberationishighlycontextdependentand

rifewithopportunitiesforgoingawry,31italsoprovidesagreatdealofindirect

supportforthedemocraticpotentialofdeliberation.Rosenbergtakestheresearch

evidenceasachallengetobemetratherthananimmovableobstacle:

ifdeliberationsweredesignedwiththelimitationsoftheparticipantsinmind,two

goalsmightbeaccomplished.First,morereasonedandjustprocessesand

outcomesmightbeobtained.Second,thedeliberationmightprovideacontextfor

thefurtherdevelopmentoftheparticipantsexistingdeliberativecapacities...In

eithercase,theconsiderationofthenatureanddesignofdeliberativeinstitutions

necessarilyshiftsawayfromthemoretypicalfocusonestablishingconditionsand

processesthatfreeindividualstodowhattheyalreadycan.Insteadattentionturns

toestablishingconditionsandprocessesthatguideindividualssothattheycan

achieveapotentialthattheypossessbuthavenotrealized.32

WorkcarriedoutbyresearchersattheAustralianNationalUniversitysdeliberative

13
democracyresearchgroupprovidesfurtherimportantevidenceboththatdeliberationisa

distinctivesociocognitiveprocessandthatithastheeffectspredictedbynormative

theoryforthereasonsthattheseeffectsareexpected.33Aswesawabove,oneofthetwo

mostbasicconceptualcriteriafordeliberationisreasongiving.Boththeepistemicvalue

andnormativelegitimacyofdecisionsreachedviadeliberativemethodsarisefrom

consensusontheunderlyingreasonsfortakingsomecollectiveaction.Onthisbasis,the

ANUresearchersarguethatanincreaseinwhattheycallintersubjectiveconsistency

canbeusedasameasureoftheeffectivenessofdeliberation.Intersubjectiveconsistency

occurswhenagroupofindividualsnotonlyhavecommonpreferences,butalsoshare

thebeliefsandvalues(subjectivity)thatgiverisetothosepreferences.Whilea

convergenceofpreferencesalonemaybetheresultofnondeliberativesocialprocesses,

wherethesubjectivereasonsunderlyingpreferenceformationalsoconvergeasaresult

ofdiscussionanddebatewehavestrongevidencethatdeliberationhasoccurred.The

ANUresearchershavebeenabletoshowthatintersubjectiveconsistencydoesindeed

increaseasaresultofdeliberation.

Thethirdaspectofthefeasibilitycapacityresearchstreamisconcernednotwiththe

inherentintellectualorpsychologicalcapacitiesofparticipantsindeliberation,butwith

theirlevelofeducationandtheirknowledgeoftheissuesunderdiscussion.Apotential

problemthatisfrequentlyraisedisthatthetechnicalcomplexityofcertainpolicyissues

issuchthatmostparticipantswillbeunabletograspthemsufficientlywellfor

meaningfuldeliberationtobepossible.Forexample,inadiscussionofthetransition

economiesofcentralandeasternEurope,Przeworskiarguesthatmarketeconomic

reformsarebasedonamodelofeconomicefficiencythatishighlytechnical.They

14
involvechoicesthatarenoteasytoexplaintothegeneralpublicandthatdonotalways

makesensetopopularopinion.34However,theevidencethatnonexpertparticipantsin

deliberationarecapableofmakingsenseofcomplextechnicalissuesisverystrong.35

Esterlingandhiscolleaguesalsofoundthatparticipantsindeliberationusetheprocess

preciselytobecomeinformedaboutpolicyissues,36whileRyfesuggeststhatparticipants

whoareknowledgeableaboutaparticularissuemayactuallybelessabletodeliberate

effectivelyonthatissuethanthosewhoarenot.Ryfearguesthatexpertparticipantstend

tobemorerigidintheirthinking,lesstolerantofothersviewsand,perhapsmost

importantly,moreadeptatrationalizingtheirown.37

Theinstitutionalenvironmentalstream

Theimpactoffourmaintypesofcontingentfactorexternaltodeliberativeprocesseshas

beenconsideredinthisstreamintheliterature:institutionalcharacteristics(whetherthe

institutionsinquestionarespecificallydesignedtopromotedeliberationornot);the

featuresofthesocialandpoliticalenvironment;theinitialpoliticalandvalue

commitmentsofparticipants;andthenatureoftheissuesunderdiscussion.

Thereislittleconsensusonwhatinstitutionalfeaturesmakeforaneffectivedeliberative

forum,therangeofpossibledesignsbeingextremelywide.AsFungputsit,Themenu

ofinstitutionalalternativesisfarricherthanthedichotomybetweenrepresentativeand

participatorydemocracysupposes,andmostoftheitemsonthatmenuremain

empiricallyandnormativelyunexplored.38Adetailedassessmentoftheprosandcons

ofdifferenttypesofforumisbeyondthescopeofthisreview,butwecanatleast

indicatetheprincipaldimensionsoftheproblem.Intheliterature,discussionfocuseson

15
theaimorpurposeoftheforum,theintegrationoftheforumintothelargerpolitical

process,theselectionofparticipants(includingprofessionaladvocatesorother

stakeholders),theorganisationofparticipantswithinthedeliberativeprocessandthe

roleplayedbyexperts.

Anissueraisedbyseveralauthorsistheultimateaimorpurposeofthedeliberative

forum.Forexample,Setletaldistinguishbetweenprocessesthatrequireparticipants

tocomeupwithsomekindofcollectiveconclusionandthosethatallowparticipantsto

expressanindividualopinionattheendoftheprocessbyvotingorrespondingtoan

attitudesurveyorpoll.39ThisisrelatedtotheissueofwhatGroganandGusmanocall

thepurposeandstyleofdeliberation.40CitingtheworkofButton&Mattson,they

outlinefourpossiblemodels:educative,intendedtoprovideparticipantswith

informationandknowledge;consensual,aimedatfindingagreementonanissue,value

orplanforthefuture;activist/instrumental,leadingtopoliticalorlegislativeaction;and

conflictual,emphasisingtheprovisionofthewidestpossiblespacefortheexpressionof

differentpointsofview.41

Relatedtothequestionofwhatdeliberativeforumsareforistheissueoftheconnection

betweenthedecisionorpolicyofaforumandthelargerpoliticalprocess.Goodinand

Dryzeklisteightdifferentwaysinwhichdeliberativeforumscanbeintegratedinto

politics,fromactuallymakingpolicytosimplyinformingpublicdebates.42Dryzekand

Tuckersuggestthattheoutputofdeliberativeforumscanbedeployedinintegrativeor

managerialwaysorasadvocacy.43Inthefirstcase,theoutputofdeliberationis

integratedintotheestablishedpolicymakingstructure,andisdesignedtohelpintegrate

16
informedpublicopinionandkeyactorsintothatstructure.44Inthesecondcase,the

deliberativeforumisusedasatoolthroughwhichkeypolicymakersproducean

alternativerepresentationofinformedpublicopiniontocontrastwiththeuninformed

skepticismofthemasspublicontheissueinquestion.45Inthethirdcase,theresultsof

deliberationaremobilizedbycivilsocietyactorsinlobbyingandadvocacywork.

Whileparticipationintownmeetingstyledeliberativeforums46tendstobeentirely

openorselfselecting,mostothertypesofforumadoptarepresentativityruleforthe

selectionofparticipants.Deliberativepolls,forexample,aimtoattractasetof

participantsthat,whileotherwiserandomlyselected,isasstatisticallyrepresentativeof

therelevantpopulationaspossible.47Othertypesofforumoperateonthebasisof

descriptiverepresentationorsocialmirroringasHendrikscallsit.48AsGoodinand

Dryzekputit,whatthismeansisthatthediversityofsocialcharacteristicsandplurality

ofinitialpointsofviewinthelargersocietyaresubstantiallypresentinthedeliberating

minipublic.Socialcharacteristicsandviewpointsneednotbepresentinthesame

proportionsasinthelargerpopulation.49Descriptiverepresentativityarguablyincludes

thosesituationsinwhichcertainsocialgroupsarerepresentedbyprofessionaladvocates

who,whilenotelected,havesomewarrantedclaimtobeabletospeakonbehalfof

thosegroups.Finally,thereiselectoralrepresentativitywhich,obviouslyenough,

involvesparticipantswhoareelectedbyandareaccountabletocertainsectionsof

society.Althoughnoconclusionsseemtohavebeendrawnaboutwhetherstatisticalor

descriptiverepresentativitymakesforbetterdeliberation,thereissomeagreementthat

whetherornotparticipantsarepartisanisanimportantvariable.Thedistinction

betweenpartisanandnonpartisanparticipantsturnsessentiallyonwhetherornotthey

17
haverelativelyopenpreferencesontheissueunderdiscussion.Astothequestionof

whetherpartisanshipisagoodorabadthing,Hendriksetalfoundthat[w]hilethe

partisanparticipants[intheirstudy]acceptedthatdeliberationrequireswillingnessto

adjustpreferences,theyfailedtotranslatethisintoactionandheldontightlytotheir

positions.Ourcasesuggeststhatpartisansmightbemorallycommittedtotheideaof

deliberation,buttheystruggletoputitintopractice.50Ontheotherhand,Groganand

Gusmanoarguethatwhileitiscrucialtoinvolveanappropriaterangeofdescriptively

representativebutotherwisenonpartisanparticipants,thisshouldnotbeseenasan

alternativetothepresenceofprofessionaladvocatesfortheinterestedsocialgroups

becausetheseprofessionalpartisansaremoreinclinedtochallengetheviewsof

experts.51

Theorganisationofparticipantswithinthedeliberativeprocesstheirallocationto

differentworkinggroups,therelationshipbetweenthesegroupsandanyplenary

discussionsessionsandsoforthseemsinmostcasestobeofrelativelylittleinterest.

However,twocasesareworthmentioning.DaviesandBurgessreportonadeliberative

forumdealingwiththeallocationoforgansfortransplantationinwhichparticipants

weresegregatedbybothsexandsocioeconomicstatus.52Theauthorsfoundsignificant

differencesinthediscursivepracticesofthemaleandfemalegroups,inparticularwith

respecttotheirinteractionwiththehealthcareprofessionalsadvisingtheforum.Intheir

studyofeducationalsegregation,MendelbergandOleskereportonaseriesofopen

participationtownmeetingswhichwerespontaneouslysegregatedbyrace.53This

segregationprovedtobeaseriousobstacletodeliberativeinteractionasthearguments

putforwardbyparticipantsremainedwithintheboundsoftypesofdiscoursewhich,

18
whilelargelyheldtobevalidwithineachracialgroup,werenotsorecognizedoutside

themor,worse,wereinterpretedascodedformsofracism.

Thereisratherlessresearchontheinstitutionalandproceduralcharacteristicsthatare

associatedwithdeliberativeformsofinteractioninnormaldemocraticpolitical

contextsasopposedtoforumsspecificallydesignedtopermitdeliberation.

Nevertheless,theDQIandsimilarapproacheshavebeenabletoshedsomelightonthe

relationshipbetweenthenatureofdiscussionanddebatethattakesplacewithin

legislativebodies,differenttypesofpoliticalinstitutionsanddifferentaspectsofthe

politicalenvironment.Bchtigerandhiscolleaguesfoundthatfivefactorswereof

relevance.54Presidentialsystemsofgovernment,inwhichtheexecutiveandlegislative

functionsarestrictlyseparated,apoliticalculturethatemphasizesconsensusover

competition,debateinsecondchambers,nonpublicdebateandlowissuepolarisation

wereallfoundbeassociatedwithhigherqualitydiscourse.

FallingsomewherebetweentheDQIandtheAustralianNationalUniversitys

intersubjectiveconsistencyapproachwefindtheworkofKarlssonontheEuropean

Convention,therepresentativegroupthatpreparedthetextoftheillfatedEuropean

constitution.55OnthebasisofinterviewswithparticipantsintheConvention,Karlsson

attemptstodeterminetowhatextentparticipantswentintotheprocesswithopenminds

aboutwhattheoutcomesmightbe;thedegreetowhichtheyactuallydidchangetheir

viewsinthecourseoftheprocess;andthedegreetowhichthischangewasduetoa

rationalengagementwithargumentsmadebyotherparticipantsratherthana

consequenceof,forexample,threatsorpoliticalexpediency.Hefoundthatthe

19
participantswidelysharedviewthattheprocesswasmoredeliberativethannegotiated

wasconsistentwiththeiraccountsofthedevelopmentoftheiropinionsandtheir

narrativesofhowtheConventionhadunfolded.

Theissueofopenmindednessandthepossibilityofpreferencechangehasalsobeen

examinedbyHendriksandhercolleaguesintheirworkontheeffectofpartisanshipon

deliberation.56Partisansarethosewhopossessfirmandestablishedopinionsonan

issue,orwhoareactiveadvocatesforaparticulargrouporpointofview.The

researchersstudiedexistingforumsfordiscussion,debateanddecisionmaking,dividing

themintothoseinwhichpartisanparticipantsweredirectlyinvolvedindeliberationand

thoseinwhichtheyweremerelyinvitedtopresentanddefendtheirpositionbefore

panelsoflaycitizens.Thedifferenttypesofforumwerecomparedonthebasisoftheir

deliberativecapacity,thelegitimacyoftheirproceduresanddecisionsintheviewofkey

stakeholdersandthemedia,andthepoliticalimpactoftheirfindings.Arguablythemost

importantfindingoftheresearchwasthatthepartisanforumshadlowerdeliberative

capacitythanthenonpartisanforums:Whilethepartisanparticipantsacceptedthat

deliberationrequireswillingnesstoadjustpreferences,theyfailedtotranslatethisinto

actionandheldontightlytotheirpositions.Ourcasesuggeststhatpartisansmightbe

morallycommittedtotheideaofdeliberation,buttheystruggletoputitintopractice.57

Thepartisanforumswerealsoperceivedashavinglowerlegitimacy,althoughthismay

havebeenduetothemeansofmeasuringlegitimacyusedintheresearch.Astheauthors

putit,Legitimacyinthepartisancaseturnedlargelyonwhetherthedeliberations

producedthepreferredoutcomefortheorganizationswithaninterestinthecase.58On

theotherhand,theauthorsreportthatthesesameorganisationscriticizedthenon

20
partisanforumsonthegroundsthattheparticipantsdidnotproperlyappreciatethe

scienceoftheissues,norwhatitwasliketobeaffected.

Finallyinthissectionweshouldmentiontheissuedimension,whichistosaythetypeof

policyissueordecisionunderdiscussion.Wehavealreadyconsideredthequestionof

thescientificortechnicalcomplexityofthesubjectmatterofdeliberation.Beyondthis,

theliteratureonthetopicisnotextensive.Fewifanyresearchershavebeenabletogo

beyondsuggestingthatnoncontentiousissueslendthemselvesrathermoreeasilyto

highqualitydeliberationthan,say,stemcellresearch,andthatthemoreconcretethe

issuethecloserthedeliberativeforumistohavingtomakeanactualfinaldecision

themorelikelyitisthatparticipantswilladoptratherentrenchedandinflexible

positions.Forexample,Papdopoulos,citingworkcarriedoutbyKlausEder,reportsthat

ResearchondeliberativeinstitutionsofenvironmentalpolicyinGermany...showsthat

theircontributiontoconsensusbuildingishigherwhenconcretedecisionsarenotat

stake,andconfirmsthattheinitiallevelofpolarisationshouldnotbetoohigh.59

Methodologicalapproaches

Inthisfinalsectionofourreviewwewillgiveabriefoverviewofthemethodological

approachesadoptedbyempiricaldeliberationresearchers.Onceagainwecanidentifya

numberofdifferentbutnonexclusivestreamsintheliterature.Firstofallthereare

thoseapproachesbasedonthedirectanalysisofdiscursivepracticeasithappened.

SteineretalsDQIisperhapsthebestexampleinthiscategory,althoughwehavealso

mentionedtheworkofHolzingerandConoverandSearing.60Inallthreeofthesecases,

theresearchersapplyformalcontentanalysistothetranscriptsofdiscussions,coding

21
differenttypesofspeechortheattitudesmanifestedbyparticipantsinordertocarryout

somekindofstatisticalanalysis.Otherresearchersalsomakeuseoftranscriptsof

discussionsbutwithoutusingformalanalytictechniques.61

Asecondstreamintheliteratureinvolvesthediscussionandanalysisofparticipants

postdeliberationreflectionsontheprocessandoutcomesofdeliberation.Thisapproach,

generallyinvolvingsemistructuredinterviews,isclearlythemostwidelyused,whether

asaprincipalresearchmethodorinsupportofothermoreformaltechniques.Karlssons

workontheEuropeanConvention,forexample,isbasedexclusivelyoninterviews,

whileNiemeyerandhiscolleaguescombinepostdiscussioninterviewswithparticipants

withbothinformalcontentanalysisofdiscussiontranscriptsandsurveytechniques.62

Workinvolvingsurveymethodsrepresentsathirdsubstantialstreamintheliterature.

Deliberativepollingisthebestknownandbestestablishedofthesurveybasedempirical

approaches,functioningessentiallyviaarelativelystraightforwardcomparisonof

participantsexpressedpreferencesbeforeandafterdeliberation.Morerecently,the

AustralianNationalUniversityresearchgrouphasmadeagoodcasefortheuseofQ

methodology.63Thisisatypeoffactoranalysisperformedonsubjectsrankingsoftheir

degreeofagreementordisagreementwith30to60statementsaboutanissue.TheQ

factoranalysisprovidesapictureofeachsubjectssubjectivebeliefsataparticularpoint

intimeandsopermitsacomparisonnotjustofpreferencesbeforeandafterdeliberation,

butthereasonsforwhichthosepreferencesareheld.

Finally,wehavethosemethodologicalapproachesthatfocusontheanalysisof

institutionalcharacteristicsorthestructureofdeliberativeprocessesandtheeffectof

22
contingentenvironmentalfactors.Thistypeofapproachismostfrequentlyfoundin

conjunctionwithothertechniquesaimingtoevaluatethequalityofdiscursivepractices

ortheoutcomesofdeliberation,althoughtheworkofNanzandSteffekisanunusual

exampleofanattempttomeasurethedemocraticqualityofinstitutionsasanendin

itself.64Inmostofthesecases,theanalysisinvolvesthecategorisationofinstitutionalor

environmentalfactorsintotwoormoretypesthatmightbeexpectedtohaveadifferent

effectondiscursivepractice.Hencewehave,forexample,Dryzekscategorisationof

politicalsystemsaccordingtotheiropennesstoinfluencefromorganizedactivistgroups

orHendrikssdivisionofdeliberativeforumsintopartisanandnonpartisan.65

Conclusions

Inthisreviewwehavedescribedtheprincipaltheoreticalandtechnicalissuesinvolved

inempiricalresearchondeliberativedemocracyanddecisionmaking.Wehaveseen

that,insofarasitaddressestheempiricalconditionsfordeliberation,existingresearch

canbedividedintothreestreamswhichwehavecalledthebehaviouralprocedural,

feasibilitycapacityandinstitutionalenvironmentalstreams.Notablebyitsalmost

completeabsence,however,isanyworkthataimstoevaluatethetechnicaleffectiveness

ofdeliberativepolicyanddecisionmakingrelativetoothertypesofprocess,

democraticorotherwise.Althoughanumberofauthorsposethequestion,66itisonlyto

notethatithasnot(yet)beenanswered.Thisisallthemoresurprisingbearinginmind

thatoneofthemostfrequentclaimsinthenormativeliteratureisthatdeliberationhasa

strongepistemicortruthtrackingpotential.Inprinciple,then,itoughttoleadtothebest

possiblepolicyoutcomes,althoughasHabermasputsit,Whetherdeliberationdoes

23
indeedintroduceanepistemicdimensionintopoliticalwillformationanddecision

makingis,ofcourse,anempiricalquestion.67

24
25
1
JanetteHartzKarp&MichaelK.Briand,Institutionalizingdeliberativedemocracy,JournalofPublicAffairs,9(2)

(2009),p.1356.

2
HendrikWagenaar,Governance,Complexity,andDemocraticParticipationAmericanReviewofPublic

Administration,37(1)(2007)1750,p.22.

3
DavidHuitema,MarleenKerkhof&UdoPesch,Thenatureofthebeast:arecitizens'juriesdeliberativeorpluralist?

PolicySciences,40(2007),287311.

4
Mansbridgeusesthetermsadversaryandunitarydemocracyindrawingessentiallythesamedistinction.SeeJane

Mansbridge,BeyondAdversaryDemocracy,(Chicago:UniversityOfChicagoPress,1980).

5
LucioBaccaro&KonstantinosPapadakis,Thedownsideofparticipatorydeliberativepublicadministration,Socio

EconomicReview,7(2)(2009),p.246.

6
The literature search was carried out in July 2009.

7
DennisF.Thompson,DeliberativeDemocraticTheoryandEmpiricalPoliticalScienceAnnualReviewofPolitical

Science,11(1)(2008),497520,p.501.

8
ShawnRosenberg,AnIntroduction:TheoreticalPerspectivesandEmpiricalResearchonDeliberativeDemocracyin

ShawnRosenberg,ed.,Deliberation,ParticipationandDemocracy:CanthePeopleGovern?(London:Palgrave

Macmillan,2007).

9
ErikSchneiderhan,&ShamusKhan,ReasonsandInclusion:TheFoundationofDeliberation,SociologicalTheory,

26(1)(2008),124.

10
AndrBchtiger,MarcoSteenbergen&AxelTschentscher,Developingdeliberativedemocracy:Aresearchreportand

aresearchagenda,UniversityofBerneInstituteforInterdisciplinaryDeliberationStudies(2008)Availableat:

http://www.bids.unibe.ch/unibe/rechtswissenschaft/oefre/bids/content/e3409/e3822/e3824/linkliste3826/Bchtiger:Steenb

ergen:Tschentscher.pdf[AccessedMay12,2009].

11
JohnDryzek,Democratizationasdeliberativecapacitybuilding,UniversityofBerneInstituteforInterdisciplinary

DeliberationStudies(2008),p3.Availableat:

http://www.bids.unibe.ch/unibe/rechtswissenschaft/oefre/bids/content/e3409/e3822/e3824/linkliste3831/Dryzek.pdf

[AccessedMay12,2009].
12
Thompson, DeliberativeDemocraticTheoryandEmpiricalPoliticalScience,p.504.

13
SeeforexampleJrgSteiner,AndrBchtiger,MarkusSprndli&MarcoSteenbergen.DeliberativePoliticsinAction:

AnalysingParliamentaryDiscourse(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2004);Wagenaar,Governance,

Complexity,andDemocraticParticipation;RobertE.Goodin,SequencingDeliberativeMomentsActaPolitica,40(2)

(2005),182196.Dryzek,Democratizationasdeliberativecapacitybuilding;TaliMendelberg&JohnOleske,Race

andPublicDeliberation,PoliticalCommunication,17(2000),169191.

14
See for example Andr Bchtiger&JrgSteiner,Introduction,ActaPolitica,40(2)(2005),153168;Christer

Karlsson,DeliberationattheEuropeanConvention:TheFinalVerdict,EuropeanLawJournal,14(5)(2008),604619;

SimonNiemeyer,S.,SelenAyirtman&JanetteHartzKarp,AchievingSuccessinLargeScaleDeliberation:An

AnalysisoftheFremantleBridgeCommunityEngagementProcess,AustralianNationalUniversity(2008),Available

at:http://deliberativedemocracy.anu.edu.au/Frembridge/FremBridgeRpt.pdf[AccessedMay11,2009];MichaelNeblo,

ThinkingthroughDemocracy:BetweentheTheoryandPracticeofDeliberativePolitics,ActaPolitica,40(2)(2005),

169181.

15
KatharineHolzinger,ContextorConflictTypes:WhichDeterminestheSelectionofCommunicationMode,Acta

Politica,40(2)(2005),239254.

16
PamelaJ.Conover&DonaldD.Searing,StudyingEverydayPoliticalTalkintheDeliberativeSystem,Acta

Politica,40(3)(2005),269283.

17
Conover & Searing, StudyingEverydayPoliticalTalkintheDeliberativeSystem,p.278.

18
Steineretal.,DeliberativePoliticsinAction:AnalysingParliamentaryDiscourse;AndrBchtiger,MarkusSprndli,

MarcoSteenbergen&JrgSteiner,TheDeliberativeDimensionsofLegislatures,ActaPolitica,40(2)(2005),225

238.

19
ItshouldbeemphasisedthattheauthorsoftheDQImakenoclaimthatitcanbeusedasanythingotherthanameansto

identifyauthenticallydeliberativeprocessesandinstitutions.Theythemselvesarguethatthereallyinterestingquestions

ariseonlyoncewehaveareliablemeansofidentificationinhandandthatthepointoftheDQIistoprovidethatand

nothingmore.SeeBchtigeretal.,TheDeliberativeDimensionsofLegislatures,p.226.

20
PatriziaNanz&JensSteffek,AssessingtheDemocraticQualityofDeliberationinInternationalGovernance:Criteria
 andResearchStrategies,ActaPolitica,40(3)(2005),368383.

21
Nanz & Steffek, AssessingtheDemocraticQualityofDeliberationinInternationalGovernance:CriteriaandResearch

Strategies,p.370.

22
DavidM.Ryfe,Doesdeliberativedemocracywork?Astateofthefield,AnnualReviewofPoliticalScience,8(2005),

4971,p.50.

23
ShawnRosenberg,TheEmpiricalStudyofDeliberativeDemocracy:SettingaResearchAgenda,ActaPolitica,40(2)

(2005),212224,p.221.

24
Ryfe, Does deliberative democracy work ? A state of the field ; Hans-Peter Kriesi,ArgumentBasedStrategiesin

DirectDemocraticVotes:TheSwissExperienceActaPolitica,40(3)(2005),299316.

25
ShaneJ.Ralston,IntelligentlyDesigningDeliberativeHealthCareForums:Dewey'sMetaphysics,CognitiveScience

andaBrazilianExample,ReviewofPolicyResearch,25(6)(2008),619630.

26
SimonNiemeyer&JohnDryzek,Intersubjectiverationality:Usinginterpersonalconsistencyasameasureof

deliberativequality,paperpresentedattheEuropeanConsortiumforPoliticalResearch35 thJointSessionsof

Workshops,Helsinki,2007,p.17.Availableat:

http://deliberativedemocracy.anu.edu.au/documents/ECPSRHelsinkiPaper_NiemeyerandDryzek2007.pdf[Accessed

May12,2009].

27
LynnM.Sanders,AgainstDeliberation,PoliticalTheory,25(3)(1997),347376.

28
Sanders, Against Deliberation, p. 362.

29
MichaelA.Neblo,FamilyDisputes:DiversityinDefiningandMeasuringDeliberation,SwissPoliticalScience

Review,13,527557(2007),p.535.

30
SeeforexampleChantalMouffe,DeliberativeDemocracyorAgonisticPluralism?,SocialResearch,66(3),745758;

Sanders,AgainstDeliberation;ElaineStratford,DenbeighArmstrong&MartinaJaskolski,RelationalSpacesandthe

GeopoliticsofCommunityParticipationinTwoTasmanianLocalGovernments:ACaseforAgonisticPluralism?,

TransactionsoftheInstituteofBritishGeographers,28(4)(2003),461472.

31
MichaelX.DelliCarpini,FayL.Cook&LawrenceR.Jacobs,Publicdeliberation,discursiveparticipationandcitizen
 engagement:AReviewoftheEmpiricalLiterature,AnnualReviewofPoliticalScience,7(1)(2004),315344,p.328.

32
Rosenberg,TheEmpiricalStudyofDeliberativeDemocracy:SettingaResearchAgenda,p.222.

33
Niemeyeretal.AchievingSuccessinLargeScaleDeliberation:AnAnalysisoftheFremantleBridgeCommunity

EngagementProcess;Niemeyer&Dryzek,Intersubjectiverationality:Usinginterpersonalconsistencyasameasureof

deliberativequality.

34
CitedinDryzek,Democratizationasdeliberativecapacitybuilding,p.13.

35
SeeforexampleJohnDryzek&AviezerTucker,Deliberativeinnovationtodifferenteffect:Consensusconferencesin

Denmark,FranceandtheUnitedStates,AustralianNationalUniversity,2005.Availableat:

http://deliberativedemocracy.anu.edu.au/documents/DryzekandTucker2005.pdf[AccessedMay10,2009];KasparM.

Hansen,VibekeN.Andersen,Deliberativedemocracyandthedeliberativepollontheeuro,ScandinavianPolitical

Studies,27(3)(2004);GiorgosKallis,DionyssiaHatzilacou,AlexandraMexa,HarryCoccossis&EleniSvoronou,

Beyondthemanual:PracticingdeliberativevisioninginaGreekisland,EcologicalEconomics,68(2009),979989;

CarolynM.Hendriks,JohnDryzek&ChristianHunold,Turninguptheheat:partisanshipindeliberativeinnovation,

PoliticalStudies,55(2007),362383.

36
KevinM.Esterling,MichaelA.Neblo,DavidM.Lazer,Means,Motive,&OpportunityinBecomingInformedAbout

Politics:ADeliberativeFieldExperiment,paperpresentedattheannualmeetingoftheAmericalPoliticalScience

Association,Chicago,2007.Availableat:http://www.hks.harvard.edu/netgov/files/png_workingpaper_series/PNG07

006.pdf[AccessedJune8,2009].

37
Ryfe, Does deliberative democracy work ? A state of the field, p. 5.

38
ArchonFung,DemocraticTheoryandPoliticalScience:APragmaticMethodofConstructiveEngagement,American

PoliticalScienceReview,101(3)(2007),p.445.

39
MaijaSetl,KimmoGrnlund&KaisaHerneCitizendeliberationonnuclearpower:AComparisonoftwodecision

makingmethods.UniversityofBerneCenterforInterdisciplinaryDeliberationStudies,2004.Availableat:

http://www.bids.unibe.ch/unibe/rechtswissenschaft/oefre/bids/content/e3409/e3822/e3824/linkliste3828/Setl:Grnlund:H

erne.pdf[AccessedJune7,2009].

40
ColleenM.Grogan&MichaelK.Gusmano,Deliberativedemocracyintheoryandpractice:Connecticut'smedicaid
 managedcarecouncilStatePoliticsandPolicyQuarterly,5(2)(2005),126146.

41
Grogan&Gusmano,Deliberativedemocracyintheoryandpractice:Connecticut'smedicaidmanagedcarecouncil,p.

132.

42
RobertE.Goodin&JohnS.Dryzek,DeliberativeImpacts:TheMacroPoliticalUptakeofMiniPublics,Politics&

Society,34(2)(2006),219244.

43
Dryzek & Tucker, Deliberativeinnovationtodifferenteffect:ConsensusconferencesinDenmark,Franceandthe

UnitedStates.

44
Dryzek&Tucker,op. cit., p. 15.

45
Dryzek&Tucker,op. cit., p. 22.

46
Mansbridge,BeyondAdversaryDemocracy;Mandelberg&Oleske,Race&PublicDeliberation.

47
JamesS.Fishkin&RobertC.Luskin,ExperimentingwithaDemocraticIdeal:DeliberativePollingandPublic

Opinion,ActaPolitica,40(3)(2005),284298;RobertC.Luskin,JamesS.Fishkin&RogerJowell,Considered

opinions:DeliberativepollinginBritain,BritishJournalofPoliticalScience,32(2002),455.

48
CarolynM.Hendriks,Oninclusionandnetworkgovernance:thedemocraticdisconnectofDutchenergytransitions,

PublicAdministration,86(4)(2008),10091031.

49
Goodin & Dryzek, Deliberative Impacts : The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics, p. 221.

50
Hendriksetal,Turninguptheheat:partisanshipindeliberativeinnovation,p.370.

51
Grogan & Gusmano, Deliberativedemocracyintheoryandpractice:Connecticut'smedicaidmanagedcarecouncil.

52
GailDavies&JacquelinBurgess,Challengingtheviewfromnowhere:citizenreflectionsonspecialistexpertiseina

deliberativeprocess,Health&Place,10(2004),349361.

53
Mendelberg & Oleske, Race & Public Deliberation.

54
Bchtigeretal,Thedeliberativedimensionsoflegislatures.

55
Karlsson,DeliberationattheEuropeanConvention.

56
Hendriksetal,Turninguptheheat:partisanshipindeliberativeinnovation.
57
Hendriks et al, op.cit., p. 370.

58
Hendriks et al, op. cit., p374.

59
YannisPapadopoulos,Towardssomeresearchquestionsonthemeritsandlimitsofdeliberativepolicymaking,paper

presentedattheconferenceEmpiricalApproachestoDeliberativePolitics,EuropeanUniversityInstitute,Florence,

2004,p.9.

60
Steineretal,DeliberativePoliticsinAction;Holzinger,Contextorconflicttypes;Conover&Searing,Studying

EverydayPoliticalTalkintheDeliberativeSystem.

61
See for example Davies & Burgess, Challenging the view from nowhere; Kallis et al, Beyond the manual.

62
Karlsson,DeliberationattheEuropeanConvention;Niemeyeretal,Achievingsuccessinlargescaledeliberation.

63
Niemeyer&Dryzek,IntersubjectiveRationality;Niemeyeretal,op.cit.

64
Nanz&Steffek,AssessingtheDemocraticQualityofDeliberationinInternationalGovernance.

65
Dryzek & Tucker, Deliberative Innovation to Different Effect; Hendriks et al., Turning up the Heat.

66
See,forexample,PatriciaFitzpatrick,A.JohnSinclair&BruceMitchell,Environmentalimpactassessmentunderthe

MackenzieValleyResourceManagementAct:DeliberativedemocracyinCanada'sNorth?Environmental

Management,42(1)(2008),118,p.16;DavidM.Ryfe,Thepracticeofdeliberativedemocracy:astudyof16

deliberativeorganizations,PoliticalCommunication,19(2002),359377,p.370.

67
Jrgen Habermas, PoliticalCommunicationinMediaSociety:DoesDemocracyStillEnjoyanEpistemicDimension?

TheImpactofNormativeTheoryonEmpiricalResearchCommunicationTheory,16(206),411426,p.413.