Browsing by Subject "Deliberation"

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6

Active citizen participation online : a typology for evaluating online civic participation projects
(2011-12) Hennigan, Sean Christopher; Stein, Laura Lynn, 1965-; Doty, Philip
Communications scholars recognize two related trends in twenty-first century politics: the rise of information and communications technologies promising major changes in civic participation and a growing disconnection between citizens and their governments. The coexistence of these trends raises some interesting questions about the role of ICTs for enabling new forms of civic participation. How can new technologies better enable civic participation? This report proposes a typology for evaluating online civic participation projects that allows researchers to analyze the goals, designs, and outcomes of particular projects. The typology also incorporates Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of citizen participation in order to enumerate the relationships between the project’s goals and its outcomes and to provide a flexible model for understanding the democratic conceptualizations manifested in particular projects. The report analyzes three online civic participation projects, highlighting their innovations and discussion their levels of citizen participation. The analyses suggest that a project’s goals, designs and outcomes are related to, and inform, its desired and realized levels of citizen participation. The review also suggests clarifications to Arnstein’s ladder for future use in understanding online civic participation. The report’s evaluative typology can aid in the interpretation of past online civic participation projects and guide the conceptualization and implementation of future projects in order to facilitate the development of more direct connections between citizens and governments and more open and transparent democratic governance structures.
Capturing the nature of issue publics : selectivity, deliberation, and activeness in the new media environment
(2013-08) Chen, Hsuan-Ting, active 2013; Coleman, Renita; Stroud, Natalie Jomini
This dissertation seeks to understand how issue publics contribute to citizen competence and the functioning of democracy. In the first part of the dissertation, a new measurement was constructed by theoretically and empirically analyzing the attributes of issue public members. Through the hypotheses testing, the new measure was more reliable in identifying issue public members compared to previous measurement strategies. Employing the new measure, results show that issue public members with concern about a specific issue, exercised their issue-specificity in seeking information (i.e., issue-based selectivity) with exposure to both attitude-consistent and counter-attitudinal perspectives. Issue public membership also had significant effects on issue-specific knowledge, and generating rationales for their own and other's oppositional viewpoints. These direct effects were mediated by issue-based selectivity. The relationships highlight the importance of issue publics in contributing to the deliberative democracy. In addition, issue publics play a significant role in contributing to the participatory democracy in that issue public members have greater intentions to participate in issue-related activities than nonmembers. However, while issue publics come close to solve the deliberative-participatory paradox, it was found that their information selectivity and argument generation were unbalanced in a way of favoring pro-attitudinal perspectives over counter-attitudinal perspectives. The second part of the dissertation examined conditional factors--accuracy and directional goals in affecting information selectivity and processing. The findings show that directional goals influenced participants to apply either the strategies of selective approach or selective avoidance to seek information depending on the issue. Accuracy goals exerted a main effect on the issue that is relatively less controversial and less obtrusive. They also interacted with issue public membership in influencing the less controversial and less obtrusive issue. Argument generation was not affected by accuracy or directional goals. Overall, through conceptualizing citizens as members of different issue publics, individuals are more competent then we thought. Their intrinsic interest in an issue serves as a strong factor affecting their information selectivity, information processing, and political actions. Despite finding an optimistic role for issue publics in the democratic process, their limitations also should be recognized. The implications for the deliberative and participatory democracy are discussed.
Deliberating in the Chinese blogosphere : a study on hotspot Internet incidents
(2011-05) Dai, Jia; Reese, Stephen D.; Lasorsa, Dominic; Jensen, Robert; Straubhaar, Joseph; Sjoberg, Gidon
The concept of deliberation, both theoretically and empirically, was examined in the Chinese blogosphere by content analyzing Internet blog posts and comments, associated with sixty hotspot incidents in China from 2007 through 2009. Measurements of analytic and social processes were made and the factors that affect these processes were examined to identify deliberative patterns in the blog posts and comments. The findings suggest relatively substantial deliberative outcomes in the blog posts about the incidents, especially relating to the analytic process. Two variables were examined with respect to the factors that determine deliberation: an incident’s category (non-threatening, threat to performance, and threat to legitimacy) as classified under the command and control system, and information availability (news availability and total information availability) about the incident. Findings support the theoretical framework proposed in the study and suggest the following logical sequences: Firstly, the Chinese command and control system is a significant factor in explaining deliberative outcomes about incidents that can be categorized according to their level of considered threat to the system. An incident that was considered to be at a higher level of threat linked to a higher level of deliberation. Secondly, the command and control system also determines the information availability of an incident but in a negative way— incidents with higher threat levels have lower levels of information availability. Thirdly, information availability, in turn, predicted deliberation on its own—higher levels of information availability link to lower levels of deliberation. Moreover, information availability functioned as a moderating variable between the command and control system and the deliberative outcomes. Posts that were associated with non-threatening and threat to performance incidents, with higher levels of information availability, tended to have a lower quality of deliberation. Posts associated with incidents that were a threat to legitimacy, with lower level of information availability, yielded similar deliberative patterns that were of relatively high quality.
Radical dismissal : Stokely Carmichael and the problem of inclusion in public deliberation
(2020-08-13) Hatch, Justin Dean; Roberts-Miller, Patricia, 1959-; Longaker, Mark G.; Sackey, Donnie; Gilyard, Keith; Joseph, Peniel
“Radical Dismissal: Stokely Carmichael and the Problem of Inclusion in Public Deliberation” has two interrelated goals—first, to lay bare the rhetorical mechanisms by which those in power silence dissent, and, second, to view with greater clarity Stokely Carmichael’s rhetorical strategies and legacies. Toward those goals, I examine Carmichael’s words in the year following SNCC’s release of the slogan “Black Power,” and I look closely at the almost universally negative responses to them during the same period. While the terms—angry, hateful, demagogue, racist, etc.—that Carmichael’s critics use to dismiss him vary, they all direct attention away from his institutional critique toward his relationship to subjective norms of discourse. I open the dissertation by introducing Carmichael and relevant context and by developing the dissertation’s overarching theoretical framework. I borrow from scholars writing on “civility” to develop “civility policing” as rhetorical action that preserves unjust harmonies (Roberts-Miller, Deliberate Conflict 154), displaces blame from oppressor to oppressed (Welch 110), and silences dissent (Lozano-Reich and Cloud 223). Chapter One finds that Carmichael’s critics shaped his image and longer legacy by amplifying a distorted version of his message. An exploration of Carmichael’s words especially within a set of letters to Lorna Smith offers a corrective. Chapter Two explores the utility of two definitions of the term “demagogue” for distinguishing anti-racist rhetoric. While critics accuse Carmichael of being a “demagogue,” his words in Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America not only contradict the claim, but also return the charge. Chapter Three builds on Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s “dissociation of concepts” and Janice Fernheimer’s “dissociative disruption” to better understand the adaptive rhetorical strategies Carmichael used in his most famous speech given at Berkeley. I offer the term “subversive dissociation” as a charge to discover the dissociative foundations of dominant racial narratives.
Talking politics : political opinion expression and avoidance across conservative, liberal, and heterogeneous groups
(2016-05) Peacock, Cynthia Clemons; Stroud, Natalie Jomini; Jarvis, Sharon E; Dailey, Rene; Donovan, Erin; McCombs, Maxwell
Discussion among the public about politics and public affairs is a hallmark of deliberative democracy. Specifically, sharing information, expressing opinions, and learning about the perspectives of others defines a deliberative system. People oftentimes find expressing their political opinions difficult, unpleasant, and even threatening. Yet when people refrain from expressing their ideas and opinions, those points of view remain absent from the public sphere. The implications of avoiding the expression of political opinions are considered detrimental by those who think that society is better when people communicate their positions and understand the perspectives of others. This dissertation centers on the occurrence—and avoidance—of political opinion expression, or the act of openly stating one’s political opinion. I employed quantitative, thematic, and content analyses to investigate data from The Electronic Dialogue Project in Campaign 2000 (ED2K) and an original survey, to explore how often and in what contexts people avoid expressing their opinions during political conversations, the ways in which diverse opinions and opinion expression avoidance take place in conservative, liberal, and heterogeneous networks, the motivations for avoiding the expression of political opinions, and the strategies employed in avoidance. Among other findings, I provide evidence that challenges some commonly held assumptions about political talk. Results indicate that even within one conversation, people both expressed and avoided expressing their opinions about politics. Within political discussions overall, whether discussion members were in disagreement with one another did not influence their likelihood of directly expressing their opinions. Ideologically heterogeneous groups did not emerge as bastions of diverse opinions. Finally, I used a thematic analysis and drew from interpersonal communication, mass communication, political science, and social psychology, to uncover the motivations and strategies involved in people’s decisions to avoid expressing political opinions. Political talk is perhaps the most accessible form of political engagement and helps people to understand themselves, each other, and the world around us. This dissertation examined the occurrence of and contexts surrounding political opinion expression and avoidance, and the existence of disagreement and diversity in political discussions.
Toward an Aristotelian liberalism
(2011-05) Sherman, James Arthur; Bonevac, Daniel A., 1955-; Dancy, Jonathan; Hurka, Thomas; Martinich, Aloysius P.; White, Stephen A.
My dissertation develops and defends a contemporary Aristotelian form of political liberalism. I articulate an Aristotelian interpretation of individual autonomy as excellence in deliberating about ends, and develop a decision-theoretic model for representing this type of deliberation. I then provide a precise characterization of individual freedom, building on Amartya Sen’s neo-Aristotelian theory of freedom as capability. I argue that we should understand individual liberty, the guiding value of political liberalism, as a compound of autonomy and freedom as I have articulated these notions. I then argue that liberty in this sense is the proper focus of a liberal theory of distributive justice. I provide a teleological justification of the state’s authority to pursue a liberty-based program of distributive justice, and argue for a liberty-based interpretation of the harm principle as the appropriate limitation on state action.