A Conceptual Definition and Theoretical Model of Public Deliberation in Small Face-to-Face Groups

Abstract

Although scholars have begun to study face-to-face on public issues, deliberation has no clear conceptual definition and only weak moorings in larger theories. To address these problems, this essay integrates diverse philosophical and empirical works to define and place it in a broader theoretical context. Public is a combination of careful problem analysis and an egalitarian process in which participants have adequate speaking opportunities and engage in attentive listening or dialogue that bridges divergent ways of speaking and knowing. Placed in the meta-theoretical framework of structuration theory (Giddens, 1984), is theorized to exist at the center of a homeostatic loop, in which deliberative practice reinforces itself. a review of theory and research on the causes and effects of leads us to develop this structurational conceptualization into the self-reinforcing model of deliberation. This model posits that public is more likely to occur when discussion participants perceive potential common ground, believe is an appropriate mode of talk, possess requisite analytic and communication skills, and have sufficient motivation. Deliberation directly reinforces participants' deliberative habits and skills, and it indirectly promotes common ground and motivation by broadening participants' public identities and heightening their sense of political efficacy.