Deliberative Model Research Articles

Epistemic Democracy and Technopolitics

In this article I examine the structure of four deliberative models: epistemic democracy, epistocracy, dystopic algocracy, and utopian algocracy. Epistocracy and algocracy (which in its two versions is an extremization of epistocracy) represent a challenge to the alleged epistemic superiority of democracy: epistocracy for its emphasis on the role of experts; algocracy for its emphasis on technique as a cognitively and ethically superior tool. In the concluding remarks I will advance the thesis that these challenges can only be answered by emphasizing the value of citizens’ political participation, which can also represent both an increase in their cognitive abilities and a value for public ethics.

Overcoming Factionalism in Serious Mental Illness Policy Making: A Counter-Perspective

Overcoming Factionalism in Serious Mental Illness Policy Making: A Counter-Perspective

Perceptions of Academic Staff in Education Faculties about the Requirements for Using Deliberative and Dynamic Model in Developing Arabic Language Curricula in Saudi Universities

Perceptions of Academic Staff in Education Faculties about the Requirements for Using Deliberative and Dynamic Model in Developing Arabic Language Curricula in Saudi Universities

Promises and challenges of deliberative and participatory innovations in hybride regimes: The case of two citizens’ assemblies in Serbia

A worrying trend of autocratization that has been spreading globally in recent years, has thrust forward a new wave of appeals for deliberative and participatory democracy as a remedy for the crisis. With a few exceptions, the majority of participatory and deliberative institutions were implemented in stable democracies. The efforts to institutionalize participatory and deliberative models are almost completely absent in Serbia and other Western Balkan countries. Yet, there has been a trend of citizen mobilization in the form of social movements and local civic initiatives, which are both a symptom of unresponsive and quite openly authoritarian institutions, as well as a potential pathway to democratization. The pace and scope of these developments in the undemocratic societies of the Western Balkan region, in terms of both bottom up and top-down democratic experimentation, call for a better understanding of their internal dynamics, and their social and political impact. Responding to this need, the articles in the special issue focus on social movement mobilizations and deliberative experimentation. To begin with, our introductory article focuses particularly on understanding the possible role deliberative institutions could have in hybrid regimes. It looks at the first two cases of deliberative mini publics (DMPs) ever organized in Serbia, analyzing their rationale, specific design, implementation, as well as considering the possible role deliberative institutions could play in the hybrid regime of Serbia.

The Ideal Dimension of Law

The main theme of the article is ideal dimension of law. Author argue for a dual nature thesis – which contends that law necessarily comprises both a real or factual dimension and an ideal or critical dimension – and demonstrates how the ideal dimension (which refers primarily to moral correctness) implies the truth of non-positivism. The key provisions of the conception represented in article are substantiated in a polemic with other well-known representative of non-positivism – John Finnis.
 Particular attention is paid to determine relation between the real and ideal dimensions of law, which involves answering five questions. First, is there an outermost border of law? Second, is legal argumentation based exclusively on authoritative reasons or does it also include non-authoritative reasons? Third, what is the relation between human rights and legal systems? Forth, is democracy to be understood exclusively as a decision procedure or also as a form of discourse? Fifth, do legal system comprise only rules expressing a real “ought” or also principles expressing an “ideal ought”? These five questions are answered by the following five theses: the first with the Radbruch formula; he second with the special case thesis; the third with the thesis that constitutional rights are to be understood as attempts to positivize human rights; the fourth with the deliberative model of democracy; and the fifth with principles theory. All five theses turn on the same point: the claim to correctness.

Use of the Internet by Older People for Health-Related Issues: A Case Study of German Seniors

Today, people are increasingly informed about health-related issues and are taking on a participatory role in healthcare. The active search for information, facilitated in particular by the internet, through which individuals try to support their decisions about their own health, as well as the involvement in medical interaction from a decision-making position, have become common practice. In this trend towards informative, interpretive and deliberative models that currently mark the healthcare and the relationship between physician and patient, the older people constitute a particular age group, given that, on the one hand, they have their own pace of adaptation to the new ways of communication and information, and on the other hand, they grew up and lived a large part of their life in a culture where the doctor made all the critical decisions. This paper addresses the issue of the use of the internet for health-related problems by the seniors. The results of a case study of the older people in Germany, which involved a qualitative research based on in-depth semi-structured interviews, are presented and discussed. The main objectives and research questions that were pursued in the study aimed to identify the major aspects of the forms and content of the internet use by seniors for medical information and decisions, as well as to delimit the influences of this new way of information and communication, specific to the current trend in healthcare, on real medical communication, both with doctors and other patients, as well as on medical practice and experiences in general.

The Trend of Four Consultation Models in Four Specialties at Four Tertiary Care Hospitals

Background and Aim: Multiple consultation models exist in medical practice. A comprehensive doctor-patient relationship serves as a foundation to bring about a positive outcome in terms of patient health. However, evidence of doctors’ impact on improving patients’ mental and physical health through a specific model is sparse. This study aimed to identify the most common consultation models adopted in four different specialties at four hospitals in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Methods: From four tertiary care hospitals of Riyadh, clinicians (n=263) with clinical experience >3 years from Internal Medicine, Surgery, Family Medicine, and Psychiatry departments participated in this observational study. A 27-items questionnaire describing five consultation models was carried out in hard copy and a soft copy using the Snowball sampling method to receive the responses that were analyzed by using SPSS version 23.0 in the form of descriptive results. Results: Out of 263, most clinicians (n=121, 46.0 %) were found to practice a blended consultation approach while dealing with patients. The 2nd most common adopted consultation model was the Deliberative model (n= 109, 41.4%). Other consultation (Informative and Interpretive) models were the least practiced models (1.5%). Conclusion: The blended consultation is found to be the most practiced consultation model. A clinician should adopt an attitude that is flexible and empathetic towards patients’ needs and expectations. Consideration should be given to assisting physicians in adapting their roles for interpersonal styles to the preferences of various patients. This expanded role will result in improved health outcomes for diverse populations utilizing health care. Key words: Deliberative model, Doctor Behavior, Family Medicine, Interpretive Model, Paternalistic Model, Informative Model, Psychiatry

Doctor – Patient Relationship in Clinical Legal – Medicine Practice

"Introduction. In Romania legal medicine suppose professional activities as forensic pathologist and legal doctor are facing victims that request documenting traumatic lesions if any or sexual abuses, prejudices, working capacity, malpraxis, etc. Objective. The objective of our work is to determine the special kind of doctor-patient relationship in clinical legal medicine and to analyze the ethical influences. Material and methods. More than 1500 cases of medico-legal examinations are performed in the National Institute of Legal Medicine Mina Minovici in Bucharest each year. Most of them are domestic violence requests or car accidents. Discussions. In the late 30 years (Ezechiel JE, Linda LE, JAMA 1992) found out 4 different relationship models that may be applied in medical practice; the paternalistic model (the patient accepts his doctor as his legal and moral representative), informative model (the patient expresses his autonomy), interpretative model (the doctor is a good friend in need) and the deliberative model of self-construction of the knowledge that the patient must have in order to have a voluntary decision. Conclusions. In clinical legal medicine the patient is not only a patient but a victim also. Therefore, the relationship is double folded. With his patient the legal doctor develops initially an informative model, then an interpretative model. With his victim the doctor develops initially a paternalistic approach (passive character type) or an informative one (active character type), usually an interpretative model as most highly requested (What would you do if you were I?) or the deliberative model when evaluating prejudices, etc. "

Deliberative Democracy, More than Deliberation

What is the relationship between deliberation and democracy? Despite the volumes dedicated to this question, recent admissions by prominent deliberative democrats—that we need not pursue a necessarily deliberative political system, but merely a democratic one—suggest that this remains an open question. Here, I defend the deliberative model’s staying power against those who argue that it has been set normatively adrift. Addressing concerns of “concept-stretching,” I show that the deliberative model provides much more than a defense of the practice of deliberation. Indeed, its key contribution is the answer it provides to the question of what democracy itself means in large pluralistic societies. Moreover, I show that by de-centering the practice of deliberation from deliberative theories of democracy, we can acknowledge the weakness of deliberation and the strengths of non-deliberative practices, while retaining the model’s normative commitments.

Deliberation can wait: How civic litigation makes inquiry critical

ABSTRACT Scholars of citizenship education have long regarded deliberation as the default framework for democratic discussion in the classroom and beyond. Turning to the history and theory of rhetoric, we question why the deliberative model of the Athenian assembly has been developed for social studies pedagogy without including the litigative discourse of the Athenian courts. In response, we offer civic litigation, a discursive framework that recasts public controversies from a pro vs. con to an accusation vs. defense format. By examining the role of civic litigation in a historical case study from the 1960s Black civil rights movement, along with three inquiry-based lessons concerning contemporary controversies, we argue that civic litigation plays a crucial role in the effort to make inquiry-based instruction critical when it addresses issues of injustice.

The probability of conditionals: A review.

A major hypothesis about conditionals is the Equation in which the probability of a conditional equals the corresponding conditional probability: p(if A then C) = p(C|A). Probabilistic theories often treat it as axiomatic, whereas it follows from the meanings of conditionals in the theory of mental models. In this theory, intuitive models (system 1) do not represent what is false, and so produce errors in estimates of p(if A then C), yielding instead p(A & C). Deliberative models (system 2) are normative, and yield the proportion of cases of A in which C holds, i.e., the Equation. Intuitive estimates of the probability of a conditional about unique events: If covid-19 disappears in the USA, then Biden will run for a second term, together with those of each of its clauses, are liable to yield joint probability distributions that sum to over 100%. The error, which is inconsistent with the probability calculus, is massive when participants estimate the joint probabilities of conditionals with each of the different possibilities to which they refer. This result and others under review corroborate the model theory.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.3758/s13423-021-01938-5.

Audience participation in public service media. From an instrumental to a purposeful vision

Audience participation has become a buzzword in Public Service Media policies, strategies and debates. Different types of audience involvement—for example, adding social media to programs or media co-creation projects with young people—have been linked to the achievement of societal objectives such as increasing the diversity of media content. Yet, audience participation has failed to live up to its promises in the practice of public broadcasters. This article addresses the challenges of the implementation of audience participation in a Public Service Media context, especially in the phase of content creation. We critically question the underlying assumption in Public Service Media scholarship and media theories that more audience participation is automatically better for the achievement of societal objectives. Insights from political theory on participatory and deliberative models of democracy are adopted to move from an instrumental to a more purposeful vision on audience participation in Public Service Media.

Stories and voices: Engaging community differences by designing a deliberative public dialogue

Students engage in a pedagogy that fosters deliberation on civic issues that elicit different perspectives relevant to a community through a semester-long project that culminates in the execution of public dialogue forum. This project facilitates three learning objectives: dialogic praxis, communication as design, and facilitative leadership. Students design, organize, and implement a public dialogue on campus, facilitating dialogic discussions on a relevant community topic. The aim of the “Stories and Voices” project is to elicit and contextualize disparate experiences, as well as to lift voices that are often unheard on civic issues. Students marry practice with deep consideration of equity, diversity, and power. Courses Relevant upper-division courses, including deliberation, dialogue, public participation, public communication/public sphere, deliberative democracy, small, group and organizational communication, and could be adapted to subject specific courses such as environmental communication, health communication, or social justice-oriented courses. The semester-long activity also provides a mechanism for examining systematic racism in various aspects of civic policy. Objectives The course engages students in a pedagogy grounded in dialogue and deliberation on civic issues that elicit different perspectives relevant to a community through a semester-long project that culminates in the execution of public dialogue forum. The project’s primary objective prepares students to foster civic dialogue as they marry practice with deep consideration of equity, diversity, and power. The “Stories and Voices” event elicits and contextualizes disparate experiences, as well as elevates voices that are often unheard on civic issues. A second objective focuses on communication as design as students develop, organize, and implement an event on campus that is marketed and open to the community to attend. Students learn how to frame issues, include those frequently marginalized, and create reciprocity in the program design. They distinguish between advocacy and inquiry models, generative and deliberative models; and learn the power of asking questions. They explore the distinctions and appropriateness of different types and aims of public discourse, and how best to facilitate conversations important in the public sphere. The final objective animates Barber’s concept of facilitative leadership, as the project requires outside commitments from students to facilitate and weigh the roles of expertise, impartiality, and conflict as conversation leaders responsible for the outcomes of the forum.

'We Should View Him as an Individual': The Role of the Child's Future Autonomy in Shared Decision-Making About Unsolicited Findings in Pediatric Exome Sequencing.

In debates about genetic testing of children, as well as about disclosing unsolicited findings (UFs) of pediatric exome sequencing, respect for future autonomy should be regarded as a prima facie consideration for not taking steps that would entail denying the future adult the opportunity to decide for herself about what to know about her own genome. While the argument can be overridden when other, morally more weighty considerations are at stake, whether this is the case can only be determined in concrete cases. Importantly, when children grow into adolescents, respect for future autonomy will have to give way to respecting their emerging autonomy. When pediatric exome sequencing is done for complex conditions not involving developmental delay, respect for the child's future or emerging autonomy should be a primary consideration for those charged with deciding on behalf of the child. Building on what Emanuel and Emanuel have termed the 'deliberative model' of shared decision making, we argue that if parents fail to give these considerations their due, professionals should actively invite them to do so. Taking a directive stance may be needed in order to make sure that the future or emerging autonomy of the child are duly considered in the decision-making process, but also to help the parents and themselves to shape their respective roles as responsible care-givers.

Model Analisis Kebijakan Pendidikan

Education was very important in human intelligence. This article aimed to describe the model of education policy analysis. This research used a qualitative approach in library studies. The results showed that the education policy model consisted of three things namely (1) formulation model, (2) analysis model, and (3) implementation model. The formulation model consists of institutional models, system models, mixed investigation models, process models, elite theory models, rational models, critical models, strategic models, deliberative models. Meanwhile, the education policy analysis model consists of a prospective, retrospective, and integrative models. The implementation model consists of top-down and bottom-up models. The results of education policy analysis used in Indonesia use more political policy analysis models based on political assumptions.
 Keywords: Educational Model, Policy of Educational Model, Policy Education

Narrative as a resource for inclusive governance: a UK–Brazil comparison of public responses to nanotechnology

ABSTRACT In this article we examine the role of narrative as a resource for developing inclusive governance frameworks, principally through an examination of two public deliberation experiments, conducted concurrently in the UK and Brazil, that took place prior to the rise of interest in responsible innovation. While in the UK we witness a (partial) rhetorical move in science governance, from a top-down technocratic model to a more deliberative model in which public engagement assumes a central role, in Brazil the political contestations over particular technologies failed to gain political traction. A contrast is drawn between the narratives that publics draw upon in responding to nanotechnology between UK and Brazilian publics. We draw on these differences to argue that situated narratives of epistemic inclusion need to be addressed at the outset of adapting any responsible innovation framework to best align its goals and practices with the context of implementation.

Deliberative Democracy: The Case of Slovenia

In Europe and across the world, many countries are turning to deliberative democracy to reform their constitutions, and in many others this question is high on the political agenda. Such transformation also shuffles quite radically the role of the citizenry regarding constitutional changes. Traditionally such changes are the sole responsibility of elected officials in collaboration with experts. With the deliberative turn, many more actors may be involved in the designing of constitutions, from citizens both individually and collectively in the forms of informal associations to various civil society organisations. The main aim of this paper is to analyse potential of deliberative democracy in Slovenian national setting, therefore authors are analysing a) framework of constitution making dynamics and b) most successful deliberative democratic tools and opportunities developed so far on both national and sub-national levels of the Slovenian government. As deliberative democracy is well known political phenomenon, we will start not by yet another theoretical pandemonium, but with less-known Slovenian contribution to the global development of deliberative model.

Moral structuring of children during the process of obtaining informed consent in clinical and research settings

BackgroundInformed consent is an important factor in a child’s moral structure from which different types of doctor–patient relationships arise. Children’s autonomy is currently under discussion in terms of their decent treatment, beyond what doctors and researchers perceive. To describe the influential practices that exist among clinicians and researchers toward children with chronic diseases during the process of obtaining informed consent.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional, qualitative study via a subjective and interpretivist approach. The study was performed by conducting semi-structured interviews of 21 clinicians and researchers. Data analysis was performed using the SPSS version 21® and Atlas Ti version 7.0® programs.ResultsThe deliberative and paternalistic models were influential practices in the physician–patient relationship. In the deliberative model, the child is expected to have a moral awareness of their care. The paternalistic model determined that submission was a way of structuring the child because he or she is considered to be a subject of extreme care.ConclusionsThe differentiated objectification [educational] process recognizes the internal and external elements of the child. Informed consent proved to be an appropriate means for strengthening moral and structuring the child.

Reasoning about Durations.

A set of assertions is consistent provided they can all be true at the same time. Naive individuals could prove consistency using the formal rules of a logical calculus, but it calls for them to fail to prove the negation of one assertion from the remainder in the set. An alternative procedure is for them to use an intuitive system (System 1) to construct a mental model of all the assertions. The task should be easy in this case. However, some sets of consistent assertions have no intuitive models and call for a deliberative system (System 2) to construct an alternative model. Formal rules and mental models therefore make different predictions. We report three experiments that tested their respective merits. The participants assessed the consistency of temporal descriptions based on statements using "during" and "before." They were more accurate for consistent problems with intuitive models than for those that called for deliberative models. There was no robust difference in accuracy between consistent and inconsistent problems. The results therefore corroborated the model theory.

An agent-based model of deliberative democracy and polarization

ABSTRACT In this paper, we examined the effect of deliberative democracy on the polarization of opinion. Through three case analyses, we find that deliberative democracy has two major components – provision of information and group discussion. Polarization of opinion can be explained by several theories: social identity theory, social comparison, and confirmation bias. We constructed a deliberative democracy model that reflected these mechanisms of polarization. We found that deliberative democracy actually decreased polarization of opinion when group discussion was a strong factor. Our study provides guidelines for an institutional design incorporating deliberative democracy, with emphasis on the composition of unbiased group discussions.