Deliberative Polling Research Articles

Anonymity and Asynchronicity as Key Design Dimensions for the Reciprocity of Online Democratic Deliberation

The aim of this paper is to identify, given certain democratic normative standards regarding deliberation, some pros as well as cons of possible online deliberation designs due to variations in two key design dimensions: namely, asynchronicity and anonymity. In particular, we consider one crucial aspect of deliberative argumentation: namely, its reciprocity, which puts interaction centre stage to capture the back-and-forth of reasons. More precisely, we focus on two essential features of the deliberative interaction: namely, its listening widely and listening carefully. We conclude that one sort of online deliberation that combines the two design features of anonymity and asynchronicity is likely to better promote the reciprocity required for democratic deliberation than both natural and designed offline deliberations (such as the designed deliberation in Deliberative Polling) and online simulations of them.

Features of Governmental Policy-making Process in the 2022 Deliberative Polling on the Reform of College Admissions' System in South Korea

Features of Governmental Policy-making Process in the 2022 Deliberative Polling on the Reform of College Admissions' System in South Korea

Consideration of Deliberation and Participation of the Deliberative System and Deliberative Poll : A Case Study on the Deliberative Poll of Greenland International Medical Center

Consideration of Deliberation and Participation of the Deliberative System and Deliberative Poll : A Case Study on the Deliberative Poll of Greenland International Medical Center

Moderating polarised positions on questions of national identity and sovereignty: Deliberative surveys on federalism in Myanmar

Myanmar is in an important phase of its political transition. The opportunity for substantive federal reform, which is central to peacebuilding and democratisation, is present and being progressed through parallel elite level forums. However, these elite negotiations have serious limitations, as they fail to reach out to citizens, and contribute to polarisation and the perpetuation of extreme views regarding federalism. To address the absence of public deliberation on federalism in Myanmar, we organised five deliberative events based on the Deliberative Polling® methodology. This paper discusses some of the key findings and demonstrates how they can contribute to federal constitutional reform in Myanmar. It shows that when debating fundamental issues relating to identity and national sovereignty, public deliberation has moderation effects even in conflict-ridden deeply divided societies. Indeed, questions that related to the institutions associated with identity and religion had the highest quality of deliberation, opinion change and moderation. These more moderate and considered deliberated perspectives are of great value for dealing with the polarisation issue that Myanmar faces and demonstrate the potential of deliberative democracy tools to supplement and moderate electoral democracy and elite-driven constitutional change processes.

Reconsideration of 'the deliberative polling' as a decision-making method: A case study of 'the Committee for Reorganization of the College Entrance System'

Reconsideration of 'the deliberative polling' as a decision-making method: A case study of 'the Committee for Reorganization of the College Entrance System'

숙의민주주의 기반 공론조사와 정책딜레마: 부산광역시 중앙버스전용차로제 시민공론화 사례의 분석

이 연구에서는 2018년 9월부터 64일 동안 건설재개와 중단 여부를 놓고 이루어진 부산 중앙버스전용차로제 시민공론조사 사례를 숙의민주주의 관점에서 분석해보았다. 첫째, 2000년 이후 교통 혼잡 도시로 악명이 높은 부산지역공동체에서 이미 2006년부터 중앙버스전용차로제의 필요성이 제기되고 2009년에는 타당성 용역이 시행되었다. 둘째, 중앙버스전용차로제 정책결정을 위한 시민공론화위원회는 2018년 9월부터 2개월 동안 부산의 교통정책을 위한 공론의 장 역할을 하였다. 2개월간에 걸친 공론화 과정이 설계된 이후 2,585명의 시민여론조사 결과와 시민참여단 141명의 1박2일간 학습･숙의 과정을 통한 의견수렴, 그리고 전문가의 의견을 종합적으로 고려해 공론화위원회의 최종 결론이 도출되었다. 셋째, 원만한 사회적 합의의 결과가 도출된 것은 부산 중앙버스전용차로제 시민공론화 설계과정에서 2018년 10월 5일~6일 동안의 숙의과정을 포함한 효과라고 해석할 수 있다. 넷째, 공론조사를 설계하는 근거가 공론화위원회를 구성하여 그 결정에 따르겠다는 시장의 의사표명만으로 결정되었다는 점에서 64일 간의 공론화 일정에 대한 정당성의 문제가 제기되는 것이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 2개월간의 공론조사 설계와 공론장의 운영은 소기의 성과를 거둔 것으로 평가된다. 물론 대의민주주의를 공허하게 만들 수도 있는 민주적 대표성의 딜레마, 사안과 직접 관련된 이해관계자를 의사결정과정에서 배제할 수도 있는 당사자 배제의 딜레마, 그리고 시민사회에 대한 책임전가의 딜레마와 설득효과의 유혹에 따른 딜레마 등 풀어야할 과제도 안고 있는 것으로 나타났다.

Deliberative participatory budgeting: A case study of Zeguo Town in China

SummaryThe search for a better practice instrument of civic engagement has led to participatory budgeting and deliberative polling in recent years. Participatory budgeting stresses empowerment and citizens' struggle against the establishment and unequal social structures, whereas deliberative polling works within the system and focuses on improving democratic decision‐making processes by applying credible social science methods. Often, these two processes are presented as being in conflict with each other, which is to the detriment of the search for best practice in deliberative governance. This paper develops a theoretical analysis of deliberative participatory budgeting which is distinguished from unrepresentative and non‐deliberative but self‐selected participatory budgeting; that is, it considers how the quality of participatory budgeting can be improved through deliberative polling. This theoretical analysis is backed by an empirical study of deliberative participatory budgeting in Zeguo Township, Zhejiang Province, China. It explores whether, how, and under what conditions it is possible to combine deliberative polling and participatory budgeting. It details four experiments and assesses the successes, failures, limitations, and problems of the experiments. The case of Zeguo offers scholars, activists, and officials lessons about how to pursue best deliberative practice in both authoritarian states and democratic societies.

Deliberation for Development: Ghana’s First Deliberative Poll

This article poses the problem of public consultation in developing countries and applies a solution in Ghana as a test case. It describes the theoretical rationale for deliberative consultation with random samples, describes specific criteria for success, and then assesses an application under the challenging conditions of a developing country. It builds on notions of “deliberative democracy,” and shows how they can be practically realized in an African context through “Deliberative Polling” (DP). The challenge is that the context is one of the poorest parts of one of the poorest countries in Africa. Rather than consulting just stakeholders, or self-selected populations, or using conventional surveys, DP’s have the advantage of consulting random samples with deliberation in depth in confidential surveys so that the opinion changes can be evaluated at the individual level, free of social pressures for consensus. Is this practical in this context? A DP was conducted in Tamale, Ghana on issues of water, sanitation, hygiene and food security. Criteria for success for DPs that have been applied in highly developed countries are discussed and then applied in Ghana under challenging conditions.

Editor's Introduction

Editor's Introduction

Deliberative Polling Comes of Age

AbstractDemocracy When the People Are Thinking reveals how Deliberative Polls are today becoming embedded to various degrees in the policy processes of some democratic states. Some are legally required and even given close to decisional power at points in the democratic process. Here I warn that the more powerful Deliberative Polls and other minipublics based on “civic lotteries” become—the more they make important decisions instead of merely giving advice—the more they will come under attack from individuals and groups who benefit comparatively from traditional democratic processes. The more they come under attack, the more they will require both normative and perceived legitimacy. Robust legitimacy derives not only from appropriate delegation but from the design and the public presentation of the mini-publics themselves. A contingent analysis argues that the more embedded these institutions become in the state, the more important it will be first to ensure and then to publicize effectively the representativeness of the randomized assembly, the balanced and comprehensive nature of the materials and experts that the citizen deliberators consult, and the quality of the deliberation. Some practical suggestions follow.

Deliberative Polling and the Democratic Innovations Agenda

Abstract James Fishkin's Democracy When the People Are Thinking (2018) is a comprehensive account of why Deliberative Polling is now the gold standard for a type of deliberative mini-public. Fishkin's book is nicely theorized, and counts as a major contribution to the empirical study of democratic innovations. The book does, however, leave a number of questions open that we need to frame and answer as we look forward to using innovative processes such as Deliberative Polling to deepen democracy. These include questions of (1) the democratic legitimacy of randomly selected bodies; (2) the boundaries of relevant publics, particularly when they do not correspond to established jurisdictions; (3) managing legitimate exclusions of special interests that are powerful enough to undermine deliberative mini-publics; (4) when and why political elites might have incentives to use deliberative mini-publics; (5) when and where divisions of labor among venues and activities deepen democracy, and (6) locating democratic possibilities outside of electoral democracy, particularly within governance systems.

Deliberative Democracy and the Problem of the Second Best

Abstract In Democracy When the People Are Thinking Fishkin offers a wholehearted defense of the possibilities of realizing the democratic ideal of self-government within contemporary societies. However, there is a fundamental tension in the book between participatory and non-participatory interpretations of deliberative democracy. Although Fishkin defends the desirability of mass participation in a deliberative democracy, he also defends a non-participatory conception as our second-best option under non-ideal conditions. Against this proposal, I argue that it fails to take the so-called “problem of the second best” into account. Once we recognize this problem it becomes clear that, under non-ideal circumstances, the second-best option is not the improvement of some democratic values to the detriment of the others. To the contrary, our second-best strategy is to use institutional innovations such as Deliberative Polls with the aim of improving on all democratic values in ways that are optimally suited toward securing each of them.

Deliberative Polls and the Systemic Democratization of Democracy

Abstract James Fishkin has had a crucial role when linking the literature and experiments based on randomly selected mini-publics with the theory of deliberative democracy. He has been one of the major actors in the first wave of mini-publics, which were top-down one-shot devices, controlled by their inventors, embodying deliberative democracy, advisory and complementary to representative democracy. Fishkin's last book shows part of the evolution towards a second wave, where mini-publics are more open to hybridization, are articulated to direct and participatory democracy and not only to representative government, and begin to be institutionalized. However, it falls short of taking the structural power relations and the importance of social movements seriously, which makes more difficult to link randomly selected mini-publics with a systemic democratization of democracy.

Rendering Sensible Salient

Abstract In this essay, the author identifies the central challenge for democracy—crafting better ways to elicit a “we the people” that the people can respect. James Fishkin's work has pointed the way. This essay takes a few additional steps. First, the author discusses the influence of technology on democracy and the importance of building understanding of the need for Deliberative Polling in the “post-broadcast age.” He then suggests methods to make Deliberative Polling efficacious on a national level.

Response to Critics: Toward the Reform of Actually Existing Democracies

Abstract In this essay I offer responses to seven distinguished critics of my book, Democracy When the People Are Thinking (Oxford University Press, 2018). I defend the book, and my research program, against charges that I am too pessimistic about the public dialogue and the prospects for deliberation outside organized mini-publics. I further defend the book against the charge that institutionalization of my Deliberative Polling approach (or related models) would simply replace one form of unaccountable elite rule with another. I also engage and in many cases accept several suggestions for enhancing the normative and sociological legitimacy of Deliberative Polling, embedding it more deeply into decisional processes, and devoting further thought to certain normative, empirical, and practical issues to which I have not previously given sustained attention—including issues of inclusion that might arise from complex or ambiguous jurisdictions.

Democracy in the Open

Abstract While acknowledging the monumental and important contribution James Fishkin has made to deliberative democracy theory, I argue that his very pessimistic view of citizen competency outside of Deliberative Polls limits his ability to develop a full theory of democracy. I also suggest that he is hampered by a narrow focus on the Deliberative Poll as the primary institution of democratic reform.

Intergroup Contact in Deliberative Contexts: Evidence From Deliberative Polls

Intergroup Contact in Deliberative Contexts: Evidence From Deliberative Polls

Random Assemblies for Lawmaking? Prospects and Limits

A randomly selected microcosm of the people can usefully play an official role in the lawmaking process. However, there are serious issues to be confronted if such a random sample were to take on the role of a full-scale, full-time second chamber. Some skeptical considerations are detailed. There are also advantages to short convenings of such a sample to take on some of the roles of a second chamber. This article provides a response to the skeptical considerations. Precedents from ancient Athens show how such short-term convenings of a deliberating microcosm can be positioned before, during, or after other elements of the lawmaking process. The article draws on experience from Deliberative Polling to show how this is both practical and productive for the lawmaking process.

The (Mis)measure of Schools: How Data Affect Stakeholder Knowledge and Perceptions of Quality

Purpose/Objective Under the reauthorized Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), states and districts retain greater discretion over the measures included in school quality report cards. Moreover, ESSA now requires states to expand their measurement efforts to address factors like school climate. This shift toward more comprehensive measures of school quality provides an opportunity for states and districts to think intentionally about a basic question: What specific information should schools collect and report to their communities? Setting This study took place in the community surrounding a small, highly diverse urban school district. Population/Participants Forty-five local residents representing a range of demographic backgrounds participated in a modified deliberative poll with an experimental treatment. Intervention/Program/Practice We randomly assigned participants into two conditions. In the first, participants accessed the state web portal, which houses all publicly available educational data about districts in the state. In the second condition, participants accessed a customized portal that contained a wider array of school performance information collected by the research team. Research Design This mixed-methods study used a modified deliberative polling format, in conjunction with a randomized controlled field trial. Data Collection and Analysis Participants in both conditions completed a battery of survey items that were analyzed through multiple regressions. Findings/Results When users of a more holistic and comprehensive data system evaluated unfamiliar schools, they not only valued the information more highly but also expressed more confidence in the quality of the schools. Conclusions/Recommendations We doubt that more comprehensive information will inevitably lead to higher ratings of school quality. However, it appears—both from prior research, from theory, and from this project—that deeper familiarity with a school often fosters more positive perceptions. This may be because those unfamiliar with particular schools rely on a limited range of data, which fail to adequately capture the full range of performance variables, particularly in the case of urban schools. We encourage future exploration of this topic, which may have implications for school choice, parental engagement, and accountability policy.

Community Perspective on Policy Options for Resettlement Management: A Case Study of Risk Reduction in Bududa, Eastern Uganda.

Introduction: Despite existing policy actions on Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), many community members in Bududa still continue to settle in high-risk areas re-zoned for nonsettlement. There seems to be an apparent information asymmetry on expectations between the community and Government. The challenge then is ‘how to consult communities and seek their opinion in an adequately representative unbiased way’. This paper sets out to explore policy options on resettlement management as a DRR approach and how engaging with communities in a public discourse using the Deliberative Polling (DP) approach; to obtain their opinions and insights on these policy issues, revealed underlying challenges to policy implementation. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted in Bududa in eastern Uganda with fourteen group discussions; comprising 12-15 randomly assigned participants of mixed socio-economic variables. Trained research assistants and moderators collected data. All discussions were audio taped, transcribed verbatim before analysis. Data were analyzed using latent content analysis by identifying codes from which sub-themes were generated and grouped into main themes on policy options for resettlement management. Results and Discussion: We used Deliberative Polling, an innovative approach to public policy consultation and found that although the community is in agreement with most government policy options under resettlement management, they lacked an understanding of the rationale underlying these policy options leading to challenges in implementation. The community members seemed uncertain and had mistrust in government’s ability to implement the policies especially on issues of compensation for land lost. Key Words: Policy, Deliberative Polling, Climate change, risk-reduction, landslides, Uganda