Deliberative Systems Research Articles

Perceptions or Actions? Grounding How Agents Interact Within a Software Architecture for Cognitive Robotics

One of the aims of cognitive robotics is to endow robots with the ability to plan solutions for complex goals and then to enact those plans. Additionally, robots should react properly upon encountering unexpected changes in their environment that are not part of their planned course of actions. This requires a close coupling between deliberative and reactive control flows. From the perspective of robotics, this coupling generally entails a tightly integrated perceptuomotor system, which is then loosely connected to some specific form of deliberative system such as a planner. From the high-level perspective of automated planning, the emphasis is on a highly functional system that, taken to its extreme, calls perceptual and motor modules as services when required. This paper proposes to join the perceptual and acting perspectives via a unique representation where the responses of all software modules in the architecture are generalized using the same set of tokens. The proposed representation integrates symbolic and metric information. The proposed approach has been successfully tested in CLARC, a robot that performs Comprehensive Geriatric Assessments of elderly patients. The robot was favourably appraised in a survey conducted to assess its behaviour. For instance, using a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), patients reported an average of 4.86 when asked if they felt confident during the interaction with the robot. This paper proposes a mechanism for bringing the perceptual and acting perspectives closer within a distributed robotics architecture. The idea is built on top of the blackboard model and scene graphs. The modules in our proposal communicate using a short-term memory, writing the perceptual information they need to share with other agents and accessing the information they need for determining the next goals to address.

Violations of basic deliberative norms: The systemic turn and problems of inclusion

What is the appropriate way to respond to actions that break basic norms of respectfulness, sincerity, and public-mindedness? At the same time as this question has become a central concern for democratic societies, a ‘systemic’ turn has unsettled established solutions for democratic theorists. From the systemic perspective, it is more important how actions contribute to public discourse than whether they meet standards of deliberation individually. This article challenges theorists to consider three additional propositions: (1) to be inclusive and deliberative, the system and its parts must be mutually supportive; (2) well-performing systems have sufficient reflective capacity to examine their own deficiencies when violations of basic norms occur; and (3) the performance of a deliberative system needs to take into account both the frequency of violations and the reflective qualities of the system’s response. For a well-performing system, violations of basic norms are opportunities to learn and strengthen the support for spaces of deliberation.

Deliberative Law-Making: A Case Study of the Process of Enacting of a \u2018Constitution of the Third Sector\u2019 in the Polish Sejm

The main objective of the paper is to present a model of the good practices of deliberative cooperation in a parliamentary setting. This goal is achieved through applying the three functions of the deliberative system—epistemic, ethical and democratic (Mansbridge et al. 2012)—to an analysis of cooperation between different stakeholders during the work of a Polish Parliamentary Subcommittee. They are used as an evaluative tool for analysing the cooperation of MPs, members of the public and representatives of the government (promoters of the bill). The paper analyses a concrete example of the work of the Permanent Subcommittee on the government bill amending the Act on Public Benefit Activity and Voluntary Work in the Polish Parliament. This concrete example is presented as a model of good practices when it comes to deliberative cooperation between representatives of the authorities and citizens aiming at the development of shared practical judgement. The paper consists of three parts. In the first, a systemic approach to deliberative democracy is briefly introduced, and the history of the work on the bill is outlined. The main part consists of an analysis of the three speeches of three main stakeholders in the legislative process, from the perspective of their view of legislative deliberations, and in terms of the three functions of deliberative system. In the conclusions, four main issues are analysed with reference to the presented legislative deliberations: 1. Legislative committees as mixed deliberative spheres; 2. Internal/external deliberation; 3. The distinction between stakeholders/ordinary citizens; and 4. Deliberative stance/deliberative mindset.

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

Deliberative citizenship: a critical reappraisal

ABSTRACTThe study of citizenship as a political or moral ideal involves identifying core commitments and capabilities, the cultivation and exercise of which is often presented as a condition of being a ‘good’ citizen. Deliberative democracy was, at least until recently, associated with a conception of citizenship that endorses those qualities that equip us for a certain kind of respectful and reflective dialogue. This article reappraises this conception in light of the so-called ‘systemic turn’ within deliberative theory. It shows how systems thinking has displaced the traditional conception of deliberative citizenship, but that theorists have so far not elaborated a satisfactory replacement. A pluralist model is thus proposed, which casts light on the diverse qualities that a range of actors in a deliberative system might require. The resulting argument is not merely of interest to deliberative theorists, but to all who are concerned with the ethics of citizenship. The main reason is that it displaces the entrenched notion of a ‘good citizen’, in favour of the more heterogenous ideal of a ‘good citizenry’.

Politicisation and Depoliticisation within the Deliberative System: assessing interactions and tensions of political communication

En adoptant une approche systémique de la délibération, cet article explore les interactions et les tensions dans la communication politique à travers les espaces formels et informels du système politique. Ce cadre théorique aide à combler un fossé entre les approches gouvernementales centrées sur l’État et les théories de la sphère publique. Deux arguments centraux sont avancés. Premièrement, les démocrates délibératifs devraient accorder plus d’attention aux processus de politisation et de dépolitisation dans un réseau de gouvernance. Deuxièmement, un modèle de médias hybrides et interconnectés est nécessaire pour analyser ces interdépendances et tensions de manière dynamique. Une étude de cas illustrative est présentée pour discuter des implications pour de nouvelles possibilités d’analyse empirique dans l’approche systémique de la délibération.

Designing Democratic Innovations as Deliberative Systems: The Ambitious Case of NHS Citizen

What does it mean to design democratic innovation from a deliberative systems perspective? The demand of the deliberative systems approach that we turn from the single forum towards the broader system has largely been embraced by those interested in designing institutions for citizen participation. Nevertheless, there has been no analysis of the practical implications for democratic innovation. Is it possible to design differentiated but interconnected participatory and deliberative settings? Does this better connect democratic innovations to mass politics? Does it promote greater legitimacy? This article analyses one such attempt to design a systems-oriented democratic innovation: the ambitious NHS Citizen initiative. Our analysis demonstrates, while NHS Citizen pioneered some cutting-edge participatory design, it ultimately failed to resolve (and in some cases exacerbated) well-known obstacles to institutionalisation as well as generating new challenges. To effectively realise democratic renewal and reform, systems-oriented democratic innovation must evolve strategies to meet these challenges.

Deliberative Democracy Now: LGBT Equality and the Emergence of Large-Scale Deliberative Systems. By Edwina Barvosa. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018. 308p. $99.99 cloth.

Deliberative Democracy Now: LGBT Equality and the Emergence of Large-Scale Deliberative Systems. By Edwina Barvosa. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018. 308p. $99.99 cloth.

Deliberative Ecologies: Complexity and Social–Ecological Dynamics in International Environmental Negotiations

Theories of complex systems can yield valuable insights for understanding the increasingly intricate networks of actors, institutions, and discourses involved in international environmental negotiations. While analysis of regimes and regime complexes has shed light on macro-level structures and relationships in global environmental politics, systemic analysis has gained less traction in making sense of micro-level interactions—such as communicative exchanges among participants—that occur within the sites of negotiation and how those interactions shape (and are shaped by) the broader dynamics of governance systems. This article shows how the conceptual lens of “deliberative ecologies” can bridge these levels of analysis by integrating theories of deliberative systems with ideas from complexity theory and social–ecological systems analysis. Drawing on evidence from United Nations climate change and biodiversity conferences between 2009 and 2018, I show how methods such as discourse analysis and process tracing can help to apply a deliberative ecologies perspective and thereby advance understanding of how discourses and deliberative practices diffuse through negotiating sites and how deliberation interacts with the social–ecological dynamics of those sites.

Civic Virtue in the Deliberative System

The normative stability of a deliberative and democratic political order and the creativity and quality of the decisions its produces depend on citizens developing civic orientations and capacities through participation in deliberative events aiming at the cooperative solution of political problems. That, at least, is the claim made by critics of the systems approach to deliberative democracy, who argue that its proponents have lost sight of the educative function that respectful public reasoning plays for citizens. In this article I offer a response to this line of argument. There is no good philosophical reason to suppose that only unitary deliberation can perform an educative function for citizens. The kinds of informal and uncooperative public speech that occur in distributed deliberative processes can also develop participants’ civic capacities and civic virtue – and not merely through their systemic effects. This is an insight that should encourage us to rethink the design and facilitation of deliberative forums and pay more attention to citizens’ everyday deliberation.

Comparing Public Discourse on Immigration in Scandinavia: Some Background Notes and Preliminary Results

This article briefly presents the SCANPUB project, devoted to the comparative study of public discourse on immigration in Scandinavia from 1970 to 2016, from which this issue of Javnost/The Public stems. Its emphasis is on a discussion of the terms “nation” and “nationalism,” particularly the notion of “methodological nationalism” in relation to the project. SCANPUB is not least about how the public sphere in liberal democracies handles large, complex issues over time, and the article thus deals with relatively recent contributions to the theory of the public sphere, concluding with a turn toward deliberative systems theory. Some preliminary empirical results are reported and references are made to the other articles in this issue.

Meta-deliberation: everyday acts of critical reflection in deliberative systems

The term ‘meta-deliberation’ refers to processes of addressing problems with the way that conversations about shared concerns – our ordinary deliberations – proceed. This article discusses the distinction between meta-deliberation and ordinary deliberation and examines three questions raised by previous arguments about meta-deliberation: (1) what kinds of communication should count as meta-deliberation, (2) does meta-deliberation always lead to reflective understanding and improvements in practices of deliberation, and (3) why would deliberative systems need meta-deliberation? Consistent with the systemic perspective on deliberation, this article suggests an inclusive view of which acts and sites may contribute to processes of meta-deliberation: it argues that meta-deliberation faces the same potential problems as ordinary deliberation, such as unequal power relations and narrow perspectives, and therefore requires careful examination; but when meta-deliberation works, it provides societies with reflective capacity, which helps them locate systemic weaknesses. The article concludes by discussing how further studies can help make meta-deliberation more inclusive in order to serve system-level critical reflection.

Deliberative systems theory and activism

ABSTRACT Many have argued that deliberative democracy has, at best, an uncomfortable relationship with activism. It might be thought that deliberative democracy faces an inescapable dilemma: either restrict activist conduct in ways that might exacerbate real-world injustices, or restrict its normative claims to the realm of ideal theory, making it largely irrelevant to the real world. The idea of a deliberative system, however, may seem capable of handling this dilemma. By focusing on the quality of deliberation at the macro-level, deliberative systems theory (DST) does not require that activists must rely exclusively, or even primarily on deliberation. Additionally, DST suggests a kind of deliberative criteria according to which activist conduct can be assessed in the here and now. In this article, I assess the extent to which DST really is able to avoid this dilemma. I do not think it is impossible for DST to do so; however, I argue that it can avoid the dilemma by presupposing a broadly optimistic picture of the world. If we reject this picture, the relevance of DST and deliberative democratic theory in general for activists will be severely limited.

Deliberation and the Promise of a Deeply Democratic Sustainability Transition

Ecological economics arose as a normative transdiscipline aiming to generate knowledge and tools to help transition the economy toward a scale which is sustainable within the bounds of the earth system. Yet it remains unclear in practice how to legitimize its explicitly normative agenda. One potential means for legitimation can be found in deliberative social and political theory. We review how deliberative theory has informed ecological economics, pointing to three uses: first, to support valuation of non-market goods and services; second, to inform environmental decision-making more broadly; third, to ground alternative theories of development and wellbeing. We argue that deliberation has been used as problem-solving theory, but that its more radical implications have rarely been embraced. Embracing a deliberative foundation for ecological economics raises questions about the compatibility of deeply democratic practice and the normative discourses arguing for a sustainability transition. We highlight three potential mechanisms by which deliberation may contribute to a sustainability transition: preference formation; normative evaluation; and legitimation. We explore each in turn, demonstrating the theoretical possibility that deliberation may be conducive in and of itself to a sustainability transition. We point to a series of challenges facing the “scaling up” of deliberative systems that demand further empirical and theoretical work. These challenges constitute a research agenda for a deeply democratic sustainability transition and can inform the future development of ecological economics and other normative, critical transdisciplines.

Examining the effectiveness of risk elicitations: comparing a deliberative risk ranking to a nationally representative survey on homeland security risk

Comparing homeland security risks is a challenging example of comparative risk assessment. One methodology designed for comparing diverse risks of this sort is the Deliberative Method of Ranking Risks. Previous studies have evaluated the utility of the method in absolute terms, examining informed rankings at various stages of the process; this paper represents the first known approach to compare the method relative to another approach. As the Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks is designed to engage deliberative System 2 thought, we compared the rankings from the method to those from a nationally representative survey (RAND’s American Life Panel) that engages experiential System 1 thought. We find evidence that the Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks works as intended, developing more informed rankings with less evidence of bias. The Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks can be a useful improvement for ad hoc comparisons of risk in the homeland security domain.

A Dynamic Dual Process Model of Intertemporal Choice.

Dual process theories of decision making describe choice as the result of an automatic System 1, which is quick to activate but behaves impulsively, and a deliberative System 2, which is slower to activate but makes decisions in a rational and controlled manner. However, most existent dual process theories are verbal descriptions and do not generate testable qualitative and quantitative predictions. In this paper, we describe a formalized dynamic dual process model framework of intertemporal choice that allows for precise, experimentally testable predictions regarding choice probability and response time distributions. The framework is based on two-stage stochastic process models to account for the two postulated systems and to capture the dynamics and uncertainty involved in decision making. Using quasi closed form solutions, we illustrate how different factors (timing of System 1, time constraint, and preferences in both systems), which are reflected in the model parameters, influence qualitative and quantitative model predictions. Furthermore, we show how an existing static-deterministic model on intertemporal choice can be implemented in the framework allowing for testable predictions. The proposed framework can bring novel insights into the processes underlying intertemporal choices.

The limits of authoritarian rule: policy making and deliberation in urban village regeneration in China

AbstractThe subject of this paper is the role of democratic deliberation as a policy instrument for district and local administrations in the urban village regeneration process. This paper contributes to a better understanding of the relationship between democratic deliberation and public policy making, and the theory of deliberative systems. Deliberation in the context of urban village regeneration is part of a complex, scalar, political-administrative system, with many actors whose activities are often not aligned. Although this configuration has authoritarian traits and operates largely without the protection of a strong and well-functioning rule of law, it is not all-sovereign. In fact, one of the most fascinating aspects of urban village deliberation is the way that reveals the limits of authoritarian rule in a modern national and international context. As we show, the Party encounters the same problems of technical, social, and institutional complexity, with the ensuing limits on vertical steering, as administrations in democratic countries. Using the case of Q village, we describe how hierarchical project management sits uneasily with village deliberation throughout the process. When officials attempt to curtail the legally mandated village deliberation process, they encounter stiff resistance and even a participation strike.

Deliberation and governance in Chinese middle-class neighborhoods

AbstractThis paper examines the mechanisms of deliberation and conflict resolution in Chinese urban middle-class residential communities. Along with the rise of private home ownership and urban middle-class residential estates, disputes and conflicts have risen between the residents, resident self-elected organization (homeowner associations), real estate developer and property management companies, and the local government. Through the lens of deliberation in middle-class neighborhoods, this paper analyzes (1) how and to what extent deliberation is introduced and employed as an instrumental tool by the local government to achieve their goal of maintaining social stability. (2) In what ways and to what extent deliberation has served as part of governance strategies. And (3) whether and how the state and non-state actors interact with each other during this process to produce more democratic governance under the Party-state's authoritarian rule. This paper adopts a systemic approach to examine authoritarian deliberation as a neighborhood governance strategy. The findings suggest that (1) deliberation has become an instrumental tool for conflict resolution introduced by the local government to middle-class neighborhoods. Residents’ Committees, on behalf of the state, has become key coordinator and mediator during the deliberation process. (2) The systemic approach of authoritarian deliberation includes a mix of deliberative elements and other features of political culture, traditions, strategies, and institutions. The dynamic interactions between deliberation and authoritarianism, between deliberative and non-deliberative features, and between formal deliberative meetings and informal deliberative talks all contribute to a functional deliberative system.

Deliberative Constitutionalism in the National Security Setting

Deliberative democracy theory maintains that authentic deliberation about matters of public concern is an essential condition for the legitimacy of political decisions. Such deliberation has two features. The first is deliberative rigor. This is deliberation guided by public-regarding reasons in a process in which persons are genuinely open to the force of the better argument. The second is transparency. This requires that requires that officials publicly explain the reasons for their decisions in terms that citizens can endorse as acceptable grounds for acting in the name of the political community. Such requirements would seem to be especially important in the national security setting, where decisions can have profound life-and-death consequences. Yet this is the setting in which transparency often is least feasible on the part of the Executive branch. Officials may be constrained for good reasons from fully explaining the bases for their decisions. While such reason-giving is especially important to the perceived legitimacy of a decision, anticipating the need to provide it also can enhance deliberative rigor. Limited transparency thus creates the risk both that crucial decisions may not be regarded as legitimate, and that the deliberative process will not be as robust as it should be. In this chapter, we argue that ensuring robust internal deliberative processes in the national security setting can compensate at least to some degree for this limitation. Appreciating the demands of deliberative democracy theory can help inform this process by illuminating how various procedural mechanisms may promote the goals that transparency purports to serve. We focus on the Lawyers Group, which includes senior national security lawyers from across the government, as an example of an arrangement that can help further the ends of deliberative democracy by providing a vehicle for deliberation that meets many, even if not all, of the requirements of that theory. Coordinated by the legal advisor for the National Security Council, this group discusses national security issues that will be presented to the President. We regard our analysis as contributing in two ways to deliberative democratic theory. First, it focuses on the possibility of satisfying the requirement of this theory in a setting in which decision-making often falls short of the demands of full transparency. Second, it suggests how legal analysis may play a distinctive role in the deliberative process. There are limits to what the Lawyers Group can accomplish. We believe, however, that it should be assessed in terms of its contribution to the larger national security deliberative system of which it is a part. From this perspective, the Group’s compliance with several prescriptions of deliberative theory helps it strengthen, even if it does not guarantee, the rigor and persuasiveness of the justifications that the President is able to provide for national security decisions.

Intra-party Deliberation and Reflexive Control within a Deliberative System

From within a “systemic approach” to deliberative democracy, political parties can be seen as crucial actors in facilitating deliberation, by playing epistemic, motivational, and justificatory functions that are central to the deliberative ideal. However, we point out that if we assume a purely outcome-oriented conception of the role of parties within a deliberative system, we risk losing sight of a central tenet of deliberative democracy and of its distinctive principle of legitimacy, namely, that citizens must be able to exercise critical reflection on the grounds of democratic decisions. We argue that parties have a special responsibility in making a deliberative system meet this requirement, and that such special role can be fulfilled only if parties’ programs, values, and strategies are shaped through intra-party deliberation. On the grounds of this discussion, we define a model of intra-party deliberation that is based on the principles of mutual acceptability, pluralism, and publicity.