1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Law and Social Science
  4. Volume 14, 2018
  5. Article

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Volume 14, 2018

The Lessons and Limitations of Experiments in Democratic Deliberation

Abstract

Experiments are essential to the practice of democratic deliberation, which itself is an experimental remedy to the problem of self-governance. This field, however, is constrained by the impossibility of conducting ecologically valid experiments that take into account the full complexity of deliberative theory, which spans different levels of analysis and has a multidimensional variable at its core. Nonetheless, informative patterns have emerged from the dozens of lab studies, survey experiments, and quasi-experiments in the field conducted to date. This body of work shows the feasibility of gathering diverse samples of people to deliberate, but it also underscores the difficulties that arise in deliberation, including extreme disagreement, poor conflict management, and how a lack of diversity can forestall meaningful disagreement. When public engagement strategies and discussion formats mitigate those hazards, deliberation can improve participants’ understanding of issues, sharpen their judgments, and change their attitudes toward civic engagement. Well-publicized deliberative minipublics can even influence wider public opinion and voting intentions.

Keyword(s): civic attitudes, conflict, deliberation, democracy, discussion, forums, group decision making, minipublics, online engagement, political knowledge, public meetings, public opinion
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113639
2018-10-13
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/14/1/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113639.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113639&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abdel-Monem T, Bingham S, Marincic J, Tomkins A 2010. Deliberation and diversity: perceptions of small group discussions by race and ethnicity. Small Group Res 41:6746–76
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, Casebeer A, Martin E, Mackean G 2007. Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: results from a Canadian comparative study. Soc. Sci. Med. 64:102115–28
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Adams J 1797. A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States Philadelphia: Budd & Bartram
  4. Aldag RJ, Fuller SR 1993. Beyond fiasco: a reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon and a new model of group decision processes. Psychol. Bull. 113:533–52
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Andersen VN, Hansen KM 2007. How deliberation makes better citizens: the Danish Deliberative Poll on the euro. Eur. J. Political Res. 46:4531–56
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Baccaro L, Bächtiger A, Deville M 2016. Small differences that matter: the impact of discussion modalities on deliberative outcomes. Br. J. Political Sci. 46:3551–66
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bächtiger A, Niemeyer S, Neblo M, Steenbergen MR, Steiner J 2009. Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: competing theories, their blind spots and complementaries. J. Political Philos. 18:32–63
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bell DA 2016. The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  9. Berg J 2016. The impact of anonymity and issue controversiality on the quality of online discussion. J. Inf. Technol. Politics 13:137–51
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bonito JA, Gastil J, Ervin JN, Meyers RA 2014. At the convergence of input and process models of group discussion: a comparison of participation rates across time, persons, and groups. Commun. Monogr. 81:2179–207
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bonito JA, Hollingshead AB 1997. Participation in small groups. Communication Yearbook 20 BR Burleson 227–61 Newbury Park, CA: Sage
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bonito JA, Meyers RA, Gastil J, Ervin J 2013. Sit down and speak up: stability and change in group participation. The Australian Citizens’ Parliament and the Future of Deliberative Democracy L Carson, J Gastil, J Hartz-Karp 120–30 University Park: Pa. State Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Boulianne S 2017. Mini-publics and public opinion: two survey-based experiments. Political Stud 66:119–36
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Brinker DL, Gastil J, Richards RC 2015. Inspiring and informing citizens online: a media richness analysis of varied civic education modalities. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 20:5504–19
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Broockman D, Kalla J 2016. Durably reducing transphobia: a field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science 352:6282220–24
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Burkhalter S, Gastil J, Kelshaw T 2002. A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Commun. Theory 12:398–422
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Caluwaerts D, Deschouwer K 2014. Building bridges across political divides: experiments on deliberative democracy in deeply divided Belgium. Eur. Political Sci. Rev. 6:3427–50
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Caluwaerts D, Reuchamps M 2014. Does inter-group deliberation foster inter-group appreciation? Evidence from two experiments in Belgium. Politics 34:2101–15
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Cappella JN, Price V, Nir L 2002. Argument repertoire as a reliable and valid measure of opinion quality: electronic dialogue during campaign 2000. Political Commun 19:73–93
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Carcasson M, Sprain L 2015. Beyond problem solving: reconceptualizing the work of public deliberation as deliberative inquiry. Commun. Theory 26:141–63
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Carman KL, Mallery C, Maurer M, Wang G, Garfinkel S et al. 2015. Effectiveness of public deliberation methods for gathering input on issues in healthcare: results from a randomized trial. Soc. Sci. Med. 33:11–20
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Carson L, Gastil J, Hartz-Karp J, Lubensky R 2013. The Australian Citizens’ Parliament and the Future of Deliberative Democracy University Park: Pa. State Univ. Press
  23. Chambers S 2003. Deliberative democratic theory. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 6:307–26
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Chen D, Huang T, Hsiao N, Lin TL, Lee C 2009. Experimental E-deliberation in Taiwan: a comparison of online and face-to-face citizens’ conferences in Beitou, Taipei. Handbook of Research on Strategies for Local E-Government Adoption and Implementation: Comparative Studies 1 CG Reddick 323–48 Hershey, PA/London: Inf. Sci. Ref.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Christensen HS, Himmelroos S, Grönlund K 2016. Does deliberation breed an appetite for discursive participation? Assessing the impact of first-hand experience. Political Stud 65:164–83
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Cohen J 1997. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, eds. J Bohman, W Rehg 67–91 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Crosby N, Nethercutt D 2005. Citizens juries: creating a trustworthy voice of the people. The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century J Gastil, P Levine 111–19 San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Curato N, Böker M 2016. Linking mini-publics to the deliberative system: a research agenda. Policy Sci 49:2173–90
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Cutler F, Johnston R, Carty RK, Blais A, Fournier P 2008. Deliberation, information, and trust: the British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly as agenda setter. Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly ed. ME Warren, H Pearse 166–91 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Dahlberg L 2005. The Habermasian public sphere: taking difference seriously. Theory Soc 34:111–36
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Davies T, Chandler R 2012. Online deliberation design: choices, criteria, and evidence. Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement T Nabatchi, J Gastil, M Weiksner, M Leighninger 103–33 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Denver D, Hands G, Jones B 1995. Fishkin and the deliberative opinion poll: lessons from a study of the Granada 500 television program. Political Commun 12:147–56
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Dietz T, Stern PC, Dan A 2009. How deliberation affects stated willingness to pay for mitigation of carbon dioxide emissions: an experiment. Land Econ 85:2329–47
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Dryzek JS 2010. Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  35. Dutwin D 2003. The character of deliberation: equality, argument, and the formation of public opinion. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 15:239–64
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Esterling KM, Fung A, Lee T 2015. How much disagreement is good for democratic deliberation. Political Commun 32:4529–51
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Esterling KM, Neblo MA, Lazer DM 2011. Means, motive, and opportunity in becoming informed about politics: a deliberative field experiment with members of Congress and their constituents. Public Opin. Q. 75:3483–503
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Farrar C, Fishkin JS, Green DP, List C, Luskin RC, Levy Paluck E 2010. Disaggregating deliberation's effects: an experiment within a deliberative poll. Br. J. Political Sci. 40:2333–47
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Felicetti A, Niemeyer S, Curato N 2016. Improving deliberative participation: connecting mini-publics to deliberative systems. Eur. Political Sci. Rev. 8:3427–48
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Fishkin JS 1991. Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  41. Fishkin JS 2009. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  42. Fishkin JS, He B, Luskin RC, Siu A 2010. Deliberative democracy in an unlikely place: deliberative polling in China. Br. J. Political Sci. 40:435–48
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Flinders M, Ghose K, Jennings W, Molloy E, Prosser B et al. 2016. Democracy Matters: Lessons from the 2015 Citizens’ Assemblies on English Devolution London: Elect. Reform Soc.
  44. Foa RS, Mounk Y 2017. The signs of deconsolidation. J. Democr. 28:15–15
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Font J, del Amo SP, Smith G 2016. Tracing the impact of proposals from participatory processes: methodological challenges and substantive lessons. J. Public Deliberation 12:13
     [Google Scholar]
  46. French D, Laver M 2009. Participation bias, durable opinion shifts and sabotage through withdrawal in citizens’ juries. Political Stud 57:2422–50
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Gastil J 1993. Democracy in Small Groups: Participation, Decision-Making, and Communication Philadelphia: New Soc.
  48. Gastil J 2004. Adult civic education through the National Issues Forums: developing democratic habits and dispositions through public deliberation. Adult Educ. Q. 54:308–28
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Gastil J 2006. How balanced discussion shapes knowledge, public perceptions, and attitudes: a case study of deliberation on the Los Alamos National Laboratory. J. Public Deliberation 2:14
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Gastil J 2008. Political Communication and Deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  51. Gastil J, Black L, Moscovitz K 2008. Ideology, attitude change, and deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Political Commun 25:23–46
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Gastil J, Burkhalter S, Black LW 2007. Do juries deliberate? A study of deliberation, individual difference, and group member satisfaction at a municipal courthouse. Small Group Res 38:337–59
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Gastil J, Deess EP, Weiser PJ, Simmons C 2010. The Jury and Democracy: How Jury Deliberation Promotes Civic Engagement and Political Participation Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  54. Gastil J, Dillard JP 1999. Increasing political sophistication through public deliberation. Political Commun 16:3–23
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Gastil J, Knobloch KR, Gilmore J 2017.a The internal dynamics and sociopolitical power of public deliberation in groups. The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication K Kenski, KH Jamieson 731–48 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Gastil J, Knobloch KR, Reedy J, Henkels M, Cramer K 2017.b Assessing the electoral impact of the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review. Am. Politics Res. 46:534–63
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Gastil J, Knobloch KR, Richards R 2015. Empowering voters through better information: analysis of the Citizens’ Initiative Review, 2010–2014 Unpubl. Manuscr., Pa. State Univ., University Park, PA
  58. Gastil J, Levine P 2005. The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
  59. Gastil J, Richards R, Knobloch K 2014. Vicarious deliberation: how the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review influenced deliberation in mass elections. Int. J. Commun. 8:62–89
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Gastil J, Richards R, Ryan R, Smith G 2017.c Testing assumptions in deliberative democratic design: the Participedia data archive as an analytic tool. J. Public Deliberation 13:21
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Gastil J, Rosenzweig E, Knobloch KR, Brinker D 2016. Does the public want mini-publics? Voter responses to the Citizens’ Initiative Review. Commun. Public 1:2174–92
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Gastil J, Wilkerson J 2013. Staying focused: tracing the flow of ideas from the Online Parliament to Canberra. The Australian Citizens’ Parliament and the Future of Deliberative Democracy L Carson, J Gastil, J Hartz-Karp, R Lubensky 146–60 University Park: Pa. State Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Grönlund K, Bachtiger A, Setälä M 2014. Deliberative Mini-Publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process Colchester, UK: ECPR Press
  64. Grönlund K, Herne K, Setälä M 2015. Does enclave deliberation polarize opinions. Political Behav 37:4995–1020
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Grönlund K, Setälä M, Herne K 2010. Deliberation and civic virtue: lessons from a citizen deliberation experiment. Eur. Political Sci. Rev. 2:195–117
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Grönlund K, Strandberg K, Himmelroos S 2009. The challenge of deliberative democracy online—a comparison of face-to-face and virtual experiments in citizen deliberation. Inf. Polity 14:187–201
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Gutmann A, Thompson D 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  68. Halvorsen KE 2001. Assessing public participation techniques for comfort, convenience, satisfaction, and deliberation. Environ. Manag. 28:179–86
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Hans VP, Gastil J, Feller T 2014. Deliberative democracy and the American civil jury. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 11:4697–717
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Hansen KM, Andersen VN 2004. Deliberative democracy and the deliberative poll on the Euro. Scand. Political Stud. 27:3261–86
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Hastie R, Penrod S, Pennington N 1983. Inside the Jury Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  72. Hendriks CM 2005. Consensus conferences and planning cells: lay citizen deliberations. The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century J Gastil, P Levine 80–110 San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Hickerson A, Gastil J 2008. Assessing the difference critique of deliberation: gender, emotion, and the jury experience. Commun. Theory 18:281–303
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Himmelroos S 2017. Discourse quality in deliberative citizen forums—a comparison of four deliberative mini-publics. J. Public Deliberation 13:13
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Himmelroos S, Christensen HS 2014. Deliberation and opinion change: evidence from a deliberative mini-public in Finland. Scand. Political Stud. 37:141–60
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Hochschild JL, Einstein KL 2015. Do Facts Matter? Information and Misinformation in American Politics Norman: Univ. Okla. Press
  77. Humphreys M, Masters WA, Sandbu ME 2006. The role of leaders in democratic deliberations: results from a field experiment in São Tomé and Príncipe. World Politics 58:4583–622
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Ingham S 2013. Disagreement and epistemic arguments for democracy. Politics Philos. Econ. 12:2136–55
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Ingham S, Levin I 2017. Effects of deliberative minipublics on public opinion: experimental evidence from a survey on Social Security reform. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 30:51–78
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Ingham S, Levin I 2018. Can deliberative minipublics influence public opinion? Theory and experimental evidence. Political Res. Q. 71:654–67
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Jacobs LR, Cook FL, Delli Carpini MX 2009. Talking Together: Public Deliberation and Political Participation in America Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  82. Janis IL 1982. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decision and Fiascoes Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2nd ed..
  83. Kaplan MF, Miller CE 1987. Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 53:306–13
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Karjalainen M, Rapeli L 2015. Who will not deliberate? Attrition in a multi-stage citizen deliberation experiment. Qual. Quant. 49:1407–22
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Karpowitz CF, Mendelberg T 2014. The Silent Sex: Gender, Deliberation, and Institutions Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  86. Karpowitz CF, Raphael C 2014. Deliberation, Democracy, and Civic Forums: Improving Equality and Publicity Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  87. Kies R 2010. Promises and Limits of Web-Deliberation New York: Palgrave Macmillan
  88. Knobloch KR, Barthel M, Gastil J 2013. Emanating effects: the impact of microlevel deliberation on the public's political attitudes Presented at the Annual Conference of the International Communication Association London:
  89. Knobloch KR, Gastil J 2015. Civic (re)socialisation: the educative effects of deliberative participation. Politics 35:2183–200
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Lakatos I 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  91. Lampe C, Zube P, Lee J, Park CH, Johnston E 2014. Crowdsourcing civility: a natural experiment examining the effects of distributed moderation in online forums. Gov. Inf. Q. 31:2317–26
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Landemore H 2013. Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  93. Lee CW 2014. Do-It-Yourself Democracy: The Rise of the Public Engagement Industry Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  94. Levine P 2013. We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For: The Promise of Civic Renewal in America New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  95. Levine P 2017. Comparative Effectiveness Research for democracy. Peter Levine Blog Oct. 19. http://peterlevine.ws/?p=19016
  96. Lewin K, Lippitt R 1939. An experimental approach to the study of autocracy and the democracy: a preliminary note. Sociometry 1:292–300
     [Google Scholar]
  97. List C, Luskin RC, Fishkin JS, McLean I 2013. Deliberation, single-peakedness, and the possibility of meaningful democracy: evidence from deliberative polls. J. Politics 75:180–95
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Luskin RC, Fishkin JS, Jowell R 2002. Considered opinions: deliberative polling in Britain. Br. J. Political Sci. 32:455–87
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Mathews D 2014. A 35-year experiment in public deliberation. J. Public Deliberation 10:16
     [Google Scholar]
  100. McCombs M, Reynolds A 1999. The Poll with a Human Face: The National Issues Convention Experiment in Political Communication Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
  101. Mercier H, Landemore H 2012. Reasoning is for arguing: understanding the successes and failures of deliberation. Political Psychol 33:2243–58
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Min S-J 2007. Online vs. face-to-face deliberation: effects on civic engagement. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 12:41369–87
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Minozzi W, Neblo MA, Esterling KM, Lazer DMJ 2015. Field experiment evidence of substantive, attributional, and behavioral persuasion by members of Congress in online town halls. PNAS 112:133937–42
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Monnoyer-Smith L, Wojcik S 2012. Technology and the quality of public deliberation: a comparison between on and offline participation. Int. J. Electron. Gov. 5:124–49
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Morrell ME 2005. Deliberation, democratic decision making and internal political efficacy. Political Behav 27:49–69
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Mutz DC 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  107. Mutz DC 2008. Is deliberative democracy a falsifiable theory. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 11:521–38
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Nabatchi T, Gastil J, Weiksner M, Leighninger M 2012. Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  109. Nabatchi T, Leighninger M 2015. Public Participation for 21st Century Democracy Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass
  110. Neblo MA 2015. Deliberative Democracy between Theory and Practice Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press
  111. Nyerges T, Aguirre RW 2011. Public participation in analytic-deliberative decision making: evaluating a large-group online field experiment. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 101:3561–86
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Ober J 2006. Learning from Athens. Boston Review March 1. http://bostonreview.net/josiah-ober-learning-from-athens
  113. Park W-W 1990. A review of research on groupthink. J. Behav. Decis. Making 3:229–45
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Parkinson J, Mansbridge J 2012. Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  115. Pedrini S 2014. Deliberative capacity in the political and civic sphere. Swiss Political Sci. Rev. 20:2263–86
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Persson M, Esaiasson P, Gilljam M 2013. The effects of direct voting and deliberation on legitimacy beliefs: an experimental study of small group decision-making. Eur. Political Sci. Rev. 5:3381–99
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Pincock H 2012. Does deliberation make better citizens. Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement T Nabatchi, J Gastil, M Weiksner, M Leighninger 135–62 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Price V, Cappella JN, Nir L 2002. Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion. Political Commun 19:95–112
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Putnam RD 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  120. Richards R, Gastil J 2015. Symbolic-cognitive proceduralism: a model of deliberative legitimacy. J. Public Deliberation 11:23
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Sager KL, Gastil J 2006. The origins and consequences of consensus decision making: a study of the relationships among personality factors, decision rules, and group outcomes. South. Commun. J. 71:1–24
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Sanders D 2012. The effects of deliberative polling in an EU-wide experiment: five mechanisms in search of an explanation. Br. J. Political Sci. 42:3617–40
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Schkade D, Sunstein CR, Hastie R 2007. What happened on Deliberation Day. Calif. Law Rev. 95:3915–40
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Showers E, Tindall N, Davies T 2015. Equality of participation online versus face to face: an analysis of the community forum deliberative methods demonstration. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 9249:53–67
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Siu A 2009. Look Who's Talking: Deliberation and Social Influence SSRN Schol. Pap. No. 1468078. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1468078
  126. Smith G, John P, Sturgis P 2013. Taking political engagement online: an experimental analysis of asynchronous discussion forums. Political Stud 61:4709–30
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Smith G, Wales C 1999. The theory and practice of citizen juries. Policy Politics 27:295–308
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Spada P, Ryan M 2017. The failure to examine failures in democratic innovations. Political Sci. Politics 50:3772–78
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Spada P, Vreeland JR 2013. Who moderates the moderators? The effect of non-neutral moderators in deliberative decision making. J. Public Deliberation 9:23
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Steenbergen MR, Bächtiger A, Spörndli M, Steiner J 2003. Measuring political deliberation: a discourse quality index. Comp. Eur. Politics 1:121–48
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Steiner J 2012. The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy: Empirical Research and Normative Implications New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  132. Strandberg K, Grönlund K 2012. Online deliberation and its outcome—evidence from the virtual polity experiment. J. Inf. Technol. Politics 9:2167–84
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Sturgis P, Roberts C, Allum N 2005. A different take on the deliberative poll—information, deliberation, and attitude constraint. Public Opin. Q. 69:30–65
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Suiter J, Farrell DM, O'Malley E 2014. When do deliberative citizens change their opinions? Evidence from the Irish Citizens’ Assembly. Int. Political Sci. Rev. 37:2198–212
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Sulkin T, Simon AF 2001. Habermas in the lab: a study of deliberation in an experimental setting. Political Psychol 22:809–26
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Testa PF, Hibbing MV, Ritchie M 2014. Orientations toward conflict and the conditional effects of political disagreement. J. Politics 76:3770–85
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Thompson DF 2008. Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 11:497–520
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Tucker L, Gastil J 2013. Evidence of peer influence in the Citizens’ Parliament. The Australian Citizens’ Parliament and the Future of Deliberative Democracy L Carson, J Gastil, J Hartz-Karp, R Lubensky 161–74 University Park: Pa. State Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  139. Ugarriza JE, Nussio E 2016. There is no pill for deliberation: explaining discourse quality in post-conflict communities. Swiss Political Sci. Rev. 22:1145–66
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Ward I 2008. An experiment in political communication: the British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. Aust. J. Political Sci. 43:301–15
     [Google Scholar]
  141. Warren ME, Gastil J 2015. Can deliberative minipublics address the cognitive challenges of democratic citizenship. J. Politics 77:2562–74
     [Google Scholar]
  142. Warren ME, Pearse H 2008. Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  143. Wood GS 2011. The Radicalism of the American Revolution New York: Random House
  144. Zhang W 2012. Perceived procedural fairness in deliberation: predictors and effects. Commun. Res. 42:3345–64
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113639
Loading
The Lessons and Limitations of Experiments in Democratic Deliberation
Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14, 271 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113639
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113639
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113639
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error