Group Deliberation Research Articles

Intuitive Face Judgments Rely on Holistic Eye Movement Pattern

Non-verbal signals such as facial expressions are of paramount importance for social encounters. Their perception predominantly occurs without conscious awareness and is effortlessly integrated into social interactions. In other words, face perception is intuitive. Contrary to classical intuition tasks, this work investigates intuitive processes in the realm of every-day type social judgments. Two differently instructed groups of participants judged the authenticity of emotional facial expressions, while their eye movements were recorded: an ‘intuitive group,’ instructed to rely on their “gut feeling” for the authenticity judgments, and a ‘deliberative group,’ instructed to make their judgments after careful analysis of the face. Pixel-wise statistical maps of the resulting eye movements revealed a differential viewing pattern, wherein the intuitive judgments relied on fewer, longer and more centrally located fixations. These markers have been associated with a global/holistic viewing strategy. The holistic pattern of intuitive face judgments is in line with evidence showing that intuition is related to processing the “gestalt” of an object, rather than focusing on details. Our work thereby provides further evidence that intuitive processes are characterized by holistic perception, in an understudied and real world domain of intuition research.

The future of societal impact assessment using peer review: pre-evaluation training, consensus building and inter-reviewer reliability

There are strong political reasons underpinning the desire to achieve a high level of inter-reviewer reliability (IRR) within peer review panels. Achieving a high level of IRR is synonymous with an efficient review system, and the wider perception of a fair evaluation process. Therefore, there is an arguable role for a more structured approach to the peer review process during a time when evaluators are effectively novices in practice with the criterion, such as with societal impact. This article explores the consequences of a structured peer review process that aimed to increase inter-reviewer reliability within panels charged with assessing societal impact. Using a series of interviews from evaluators from the UK’s Research Excellence Framework conducted before (pre-evaluation) and then again after the completion of the process (post-evaluation), it explores evaluators’ perceptions about how one tool of a structured evaluation process, pre-evaluation training, influenced their approaches to achieving a consensus within the peer review panel. Building on lessons learnt from studies on achieving inter-reviewer reliability and from consensus building with peer review groups, this article debates the benefits of structured peer review processes in cases when the evaluators are unsure of the criterion (as was the case with the Impact criterion), and therefore the risks of a low IRR are increased. In particular, this article explores how individual approaches to assessing Impact were normalized during group deliberation around Impact and how these relate to evaluators’ perceptions of the advice given during the pre-evaluation training. This article is published as part of a collection on the future of research assessment.

Should juries deliberate?

Trial by jury is a fundamental feature of democratic governance. But what form should jury decision-making take? I argue against the status quo system in which juries are encouraged and even required to engage in group deliberation as a means to reaching a decision. Jury deliberation is problematic for both theoretical and empirical reasons. On the theoretical front, deliberation destroys the independence of jurors’ judgments that is needed for certain attractive theoretical results. On the empirical front, we have evidence from both legal and non-legal contexts that group deliberation often leads to group judgments that are worse in a number of respects than judgments generated by non-interactional methods of judgment aggregation. Finally, I examine some possible alternatives to free-wheeling jury deliberation, including the constrained and structured deliberation embodied in the DELPHI method, voting (without deliberation), and averaging of probabilistic judgments.

Outcomes of an International Workshop on Preconception Expanded Carrier Screening: Some Considerations for Governments.

Consideration of expanded carrier screening has become an emerging issue for governments. However, traditional criteria for decision-making regarding screening programs do not incorporate all the issues relevant to expanded carrier screening. Further, there is a lack of consistent guidance in the literature regarding the development of appropriate criteria for government assessment of expanded carrier screening. Given this, a workshop was held to identify key public policy issues related to preconception expanded carrier screening, which governments should consider when deciding whether to publicly fund such programs. In June 2015, a satellite workshop was held at the European Society of Human Genetics Conference. It was structured around two design features: (1) the provision of information from a range of perspectives and (2) small group deliberations on the key issues that governments need to consider and the benefits, risks, and challenges of implementing publicly funded whole-population preconception carrier screening. Forty-one international experts attended the workshop. The deliberations centered primarily on the conditions to be tested and the elements of the screening program itself. Participants expected only severe conditions to be screened but were concerned about the lack of a consensus definition of "severe." Issues raised regarding the screening program included the purpose, benefits, harms, target population, program acceptability, components of a program, and economic evaluation. Participants also made arguments for consideration of the accuracy of screening tests. A wide range of issues require careful consideration by governments that want to assess expanded carrier screening. Traditional criteria for government decision-making regarding screening programs are not a "best fit" for expanded carrier screening and new models of decision-making with appropriate criteria are required. There is a need to define what a "severe" condition is, to build evidence regarding the reliability and accuracy of screening tests, to consider the equitable availability and downstream effects on and costs of follow-up interventions for those identified as carriers, and to explore the ways in which the components of a screening program would be impacted by unique features of expanded carrier screening.

Integrating APOL1 Gene Variants Into Renal Transplantation: Considerations Arising From the American Society of Transplantation Expert Conference.

Thirteen percent of individuals of African ancestry express two variant copies of the gene encoding apolipoprotein 1 (APOL1) that has been associated with an increased risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the general population. Limited studies suggest that the survival of transplanted kidneys from donors expressing two APOL1 risk alleles is inferior to that of kidneys from donors with zero or one risk allele. In living kidney donation, two case reports describe donors expressing two APOL1 risk alleles who developed ESRD. Given the potential impact of APOL1 variants on the utility and safety of kidney transplantation and living kidney donation, the American Society of Transplantation convened a meeting with the goals of summarizing the current state of knowledge with respect to transplantation and APOL1, identifying knowledge gaps and studies to address these gaps, and considering approaches to integrating APOL1 into clinical practice. The authors recognize that current data are not sufficient to support traditional evidence-based guidelines but also recognize that it may require several years to generate the necessary data. Thus, approaches as to how APOL1 might currently be integrated into the clinical decision-making process were considered. This report summarizes the group's deliberations.

"Now I Don't Have to Guess": Using Pamphlets to Encourage Residents and Families/Friends to Engage in Advance Care Planning in Long-Term Care.

Objective: This article explores whether access to illness trajectory pamphlets for five conditions with high prevalence in long-term care (LTC) can encourage residents and families/friends to openly engage in advance care planning (ACP) discussions with one another and with health providers. Method: In all, 57 residents and families/friends in LTC completed surveys and 56 participated in seven focus groups that explored whether the pamphlets supported ACP engagement. Results: Survey results suggested that access to pamphlets encouraged residents and families/friends to reflect on future care (48/57, 84%), clarified what questions to ask (40/57, 70%), and increased comfort in talking about end of life (EOL) care (36/57, 63%). Discussions between relatives and friends/families (32/57, 56%) or with health providers (21/57, 37%) were less common. Focus group deliberations illuminated that while reading illness-specific information was validating, a tendency to protect one another from an emotional topic, prevented residents and families/friends from conversing with one another about EOL issues. Discussion: Having access to pamphlets with information about EOL care provides important and welcome opportunities for reflection for both residents in LTC and their families/friends. Moving residents and families/friends from reflecting on issues to discussing them together could require staff support through planned care conferences or staff initiated conversations at the bedside.

Comparing group deliberation to other forms of preference aggregation in valuing ecosystem services

Comparing group deliberation to other forms of preference aggregation in valuing ecosystem services

Professional development shaping teacher agency and creative insubordination

Abstract The goal of this paper is to discuss the acts of creative insubordination of four mathematics teachers revealed in their narratives. The four teachers shared a common experience; they participated in a course entitled Teaching Mathematics in the Early Grades, which contributed to their professional development. Through the narratives, we identify how the course provoked teachers' agency and their acts of creative insubordination. The collaborative nature of the course, along with the reflection on practice, the group deliberations about implementing alternative teaching strategies, and the documentation of student learning, provided teachers with the confidence and self-efficacy necessary to defend the multiple dimensions of their practice and their acts of creative insubordination.

Characteristics of Experienced Elementary Teachers' Group Deliberation in Reconstructing a Korean Language Lesson Plan for Third Graders

Characteristics of Experienced Elementary Teachers' Group Deliberation in Reconstructing a Korean Language Lesson Plan for Third Graders

Effectiveness of short-term knowledge communication on Baltic Sea marine genetic biodiversity to public managers

The aim of this study is to assess the impact of two forms of short-term knowledge communication—lectures and group deliberations—on public managers’ policy beliefs regarding genetic biodiversity in the Baltic Sea. Genetic biodiversity is a key component of biological variation, but despite scientific knowledge and far-reaching political goals, genetic biodiversity remains neglected in marine management. Previous research highlights lack of knowledge among managers as one explanation to the implementation deficit. This multidisciplinary study builds on the identified need for an improved knowledge transfer between science and ongoing management. A basic knowledge package on genetic biodiversity in the Baltic Sea was presented as either a lecture or a deliberative group discussion to two separate samples of public managers who are involved in Baltic Sea and other biodiversity management at the regional level in Sweden. The empirical findings show that the communicated information has an impact on the public managers’ beliefs on genetic biodiversity of the Baltic Sea. Lectures seem more efficient to transfer knowledge on this theme. Those who received information through a lecture strengthen their confidence in area protection as a management tool to conserve genetic diversity. They were also more convinced of the obligation of authorities at national and regional level to take on larger responsibility for genetic conservation than those managers who participated in a deliberative discussion.

Talking with like-minded people—Equality and efficacy in enclave deliberation

Enclaves of like-minded people are often seen as problematic from a democratic point of view, as they have been found to lead to both group polarization and an amplification of cognitive errors. Nevertheless, enclaves can also act as protected spaces have the opportunity to discuss politics with their peers. As a result, people who are less well-endowed to face political disagreement can find it easier to engage in politics. In order to study the ‘empowering’ potential of enclave deliberation, we use data from a population-based experiment (n=207). The participants were randomly allocated to two treatments. Some participants deliberated in groups consisting of people with similar baseline views on immigration (like-minded treatment), whereas others deliberated in groups where both restrictive and permissive participants were present (mixed treatment). We hypothesize that (1) discussion in like-minded groups is more equal than in mixed opinion groups and that (2) participants with lower resources feel politically more efficacious after deliberation in like-minded than in mixed groups. Our results suggest that people with higher resources tend to be more active regardless of treatment. Nevertheless, we also find that among those with lower resources deliberation in like-minded groups generates a higher sense of equality than discussion in mixed opinion groups.

Development and Usefulness of a District Health Systems Tool for Performance Improvement in Essential Public Health Functions in Botswana and Mozambique.

This study describes the development of a self-audit tool for public health and the associated methodology for implementing a district health system self-audit tool that can provide quantitative data on how district governments perceive their performance of the essential public health functions. Development began with a consensus-building process to engage Ministry of Health and provincial health officers in Mozambique and Botswana. We then worked with lists of relevant public health functions as determined by these stakeholders to adapt a self-audit tool describing essential public health functions to each country's health system. We then piloted the tool across districts in both countries and conducted interviews with district health personnel to determine health workers' perception of the usefulness of the approach. Country stakeholders were able to develop consensus around 11 essential public health functions that were relevant in each country. Pilots of the self-audit tool enabled the tool to be effectively shortened. Pilots also disclosed a tendency to upcode during self-audits that was checked by group deliberation. Convening sessions at the district enabled better attendance and representative deliberation. Instant feedback from the audit was a feature that 100% of pilot respondents found most useful. The development of metrics that provide feedback on public health performance can be used as an aid in the self-assessment of health system performance at the district level. Measurements of practice can open the door to future applications for practice improvement and research into the determinants and consequences of better public health practice. The current tool can be assessed for its usefulness to district health managers in improving their public health practice. The tool can also be used by the Ministry of Health or external donors in the African region for monitoring the district-level performance of the essential public health functions.

A Conversation with Jane J. Mansbridge and Martha McCoy

Jane J. Mansbridge, Charles F. Adams Professor of Political Leadership and Democratic Values, and Martha McCoy, Executive Director of Everyday Democracy, discuss deliberative equity and equality in theory and practice. They identify potential tensions and trade-offs between the two values and between these values and other deliberative aims. They discuss how practitioners have attempted to promote equal and equitable deliberative processes and the challenges of measuring these concepts in deliberative settings. Their conversation provides insights into best practices for enabling marginalized groups to engage in deliberation and the persistent challenges that remain. Together, Mansbridge and McCoy outline opportunities for future theoretical and empirical progress in better understanding and ultimately building effective deliberative groups, institutions, and systems.

How common standards can diminish collective intelligence: a computational study.

Making good decisions depends on having accurate information - quickly, and in a form in which it can be readily communicated and acted upon. Two features of medical practice can help: deliberation in groups and the use of scores and grades in evaluation. We study the contributions of these features using a multi-agent computer simulation of groups of physicians. One might expect individual differences in members' grading standards to reduce the capacity of the group to discover the facts on which well-informed decisions depend. Observations of the simulated groups suggest on the contrary that this kind of diversity can in fact be conducive to epistemic performance. Sometimes, it is adopting common standards that may be expected to result in poor decisions.

Background inequality and differential participation in deliberative valuation: Lessons from small-group discussions on forest conservation in Colombia

Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) methods have been proposed as a more democratic alternative to traditional contingent valuation methods (CVM) for natural- resource decision making. These deliberative methods are subject to criticisms. One issue of concern is that the socio-economic inequalities among members of the deliberative group may severely impede communication and consequently distort deliberative outcomes. To examine such possibility we applied the deliberative methodology in a case study of forest conservation in Colombia. We found that those individuals who assumed social (environmental) leadership positions tended to dominate group discussion. Nevertheless, the variations in the capacity to engage in group deliberation were better explained by participants' personal characteristics than external constraints or group pressure. Also, there was little evidence that leadership and domination in group deliberation significantly influenced participants' stated WTP. We conclude that DMV is vulnerable to the background inequalities among group members. The democratic potential of deliberative methods should be critically examined in terms of the capacity to communicate effectively and equally.

Young People’s Response to The Response: The Impact of Political Diversity and Media Framing on Discussions of Combatant Tribunals

This article presents results of a study of the impact of political dynamics on group deliberations of issues presented in the short film The Response. We selected four groups of 18-22 year-old participants based on political views, engagement, and efficacy (liberal, conservative, and two mixed groups), and asked them to view and discuss issues presented in The Response related to the combatant status review tribunals held at Guantanamo Bay. We found the groups with mixed political views had higher quality discussions of the issues and a better understanding of the issues post-discussion – in particular the tension between national security versus individual rights and of the nature of the tribunals. We also found a significant number of conservative group members became more conservative in their views as a result of their discussion. We discuss implications for secondary and post-secondary education as well as for political polarization overall in society.

Priorities for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research: The Views of Minority and Underserved Communities.

To learn how minority and underserved communities would set priorities for patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR). Sixteen groups (n=183) from minority and underserved communities in two states deliberated about PCOR priorities using the simulation exercise CHoosing All Together (CHAT). Most participants were minority, one-third reported income <$10,000, and one-fourth reported fair/poor health. Academic-community partnerships adapted CHAT for PCOR priority setting using existing research agendas and interviews with community leaders, clinicians, and key informants. Tablet-based CHAT collected demographic information, individual priorities before and after group deliberation, and groups' priorities. Individuals and groups prioritized research on Quality of Life, Patient-Doctor, Access, Special Needs, and (by total resources spent) Compare Approaches. Those with less than a high school education were less likely to prioritize New Approaches, Patient-Doctor, Quality of Life, and Families/Caregivers. Blacks were less likely to prioritize research on Causes of Disease, New Approaches, and Compare Approaches than whites. Compare Approaches, Special Needs, Access, and Families/Caregivers were significantly more likely to be selected by individuals after compared to before deliberation. Members of underserved communities, in informed deliberations, prioritized research on Quality of Life, Patient-Doctor, Special Needs, Access, and Compare Approaches.

FARMER GROUP DYNAMICS AND PRIVATE FOREST DEVELOPMENTS IN SERANG DISTRICT BANTEN PROVINCE

The success of the development of Private Forest (PF) can not be separated from the farmer groups (FG). The research aimed to: (1) analyzing the organization and rules of FG and (2) analyzing the relationship between development of FG and its PF that managed by this FG. First analysis by using historical case studies or organization method while second analysis by using ethnographic method. The results showed that the organizational structure of FG which was formed since the beginning or as a result of reform was simple so it would be ease to facilitate on the decision making. Norms of the group was as the result of the deliberation agreed upon, understood and adhered to by all members, even though it was not formally written. The norm of the board executives and members were not been stated formally but it was reported during group deliberation and so that it running well. FG consisting of 15 people and was formed in 2002 and amended in 2011 and it growing continuously until 2014. The development of the FG was characterized by growing type of business, assets of the FG and the land area of PF was managed by FG.

Understanding An Informed Public's Views On The Role Of Evidence In Making Health Care Decisions.

Policy makers and practitioners increasingly believe that medical evidence plays a critical role in improving care and health outcomes and lowering costs. However, public understanding of the role of evidence-based care may be different. Public deliberation is a process that convenes diverse citizens and has them learn about and consider ethical or values-based dilemmas and weigh alternative views. The Community Forum Deliberative Methods Demonstration project, sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, obtained informed public views on the role of evidence in health care decisions through seventy-six deliberative groups involving 907 people overall, in the period August-November 2012. Although participants perceived evidence as being essential to high-quality care, they also believed that personal choice or clinical judgment could trump evidence. They viewed doctors as central figures in discussing evidence with patients and key arbiters of whether to follow evidence in individual cases. They found evidence of harm to individuals or the community to be more compelling than evidence of effectiveness. These findings indicate that increased public understanding of evidence can play an important role in advancing evidence-based care by helping create policies that better reflect the needs and values of the public.

Reasoning Together Through Telling Stories: How People Talk about Social Controversies

We use focus groups of ordinary citizens talking about social controversies to analyze the role of storytelling in collective reasoning. Prior research has emphasized storytelling and abstract reasoning as distinct rhetorical forms, and elaborated on how they function differently in group deliberation. But we find that people often combine the telling of stories and the articulation of abstract principles as they reason together about controversial issues. We extend prior research by showing how storytelling can foster collective reasoning and how people combine telling stories and stating abstract principles to create morally complex understandings of concrete courses of action. We complicate earlier research by showing that, in some group settings, stories are treated as legitimate justifications for the speaker’s preferences and are not used disproportionately by more marginal group members. Our research emphasizes the constitutive role that storytelling can play in collective reasoning by highlighting the interplay of stories and abstract principles and the way that stories themselves can function as a form of reason-giving.