Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T22:51:03.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Small Differences that Matter: The Impact of Discussion Modalities on Deliberative Outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2014

Lucio Baccaro ,
André Bächtiger  and
Marion Deville
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An experiment on the extension of the political rights of foreigners in the Swiss city of Geneva used three different procedural ways to structure deliberation: participants take positions at the outset, do not take positions, and reflect first. Most opinion change occurred when participants did not have to take a position at the outset. However, no learning effects were recorded, the deliberative quality was poor and group influence had the greatest impact. When participants had to take a position at the outset, opinion change and group influence were least, but there was significant learning, and the deliberative quality was better. These results indicate a potential trade-off between opinion change – which many scholars equate with deliberative success – and good procedural deliberative quality.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , July 2016 , pp. 551 - 566
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Sociology, University of Geneva; Department of Political Science, University of Luzern; Department of Sociology; University of Geneva, respectively (emails: lucio.baccaro@unige.ch; Andre.Baechtiger@unilu.ch; Marion.Deville-Naggay@unige.ch). The authors wish to thank Simone Chambers, Michael Bechtel, Alex Gabadinho, Dominik Hangartner, Annabelle Lever, Michael McKenzie, Paul Quirk, Mark Warren, participants at two Geneva brownbag seminars (April and June 2013), participants at the annual conference of the ‘Arbeitskreis Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheorie’ (Munich, June 2013), three reviewers, and the editor Bob Goodin for excellent comments and suggestions on previous versions of this article. For excellent research assistance, they thank Julien Barut and Alexis Scherrer. They are grateful to all the students who contributed as moderators and technicians. They acknowledge financial support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF Grants 100017_143210 and PP00P1_128576). The online appendix and data replication sets are available at http://;dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1017/S0007123414000167.

References

REFERENCES

Baccaro, Lucio, Cradden, Conor, and Deville, Marion. 2011. Should Foreigners Vote? Outcomes of a Deliberation Experiment in the City of Rousseau. Paper presented at ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, St. Gallen.Google Scholar
Carens, Joseph H. 2005. The Integration of Immigrants. Journal of Moral Philosophy 2 (1):29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carens, Joseph H. 2014. The Ethics of Immigration . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1986. An Epistemic Conception of Democracy. Ethics 97 (1):26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems among Mass Publics. Pp. 206–261 in Ideology and Discontent, edited by David E. Apter. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
Cruikshank, Jeffrey, and Susskind, Lawrence. 1989. Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1998. On Democracy. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elga, Adam. 2006. Reflection and Disagreement. Nous 41:478–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1997. The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory. Pp. 3–34 in Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, edited by James Bohman and William Rehg. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esterling, Kevin M., Neblo, Michael A., and Lazer, David M. J.. 2011. Means, Motive, and Opportunity in Becoming Informed about Politics: A Deliberative Field Experiment with Members of Congress and Their Constituents. Public Opinion Quarterly 75:483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Roger, Ury, William L., and Patton, Bruce. 1991. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Fishkin, James. 2009. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fishkin, James S. 2010. Response to Critics of When the People Speak: The Deliberative Deficit and What To Do about It. The Good Society 19 (1):68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, James, Luskin, S. Robert, and Siu, Alice. (2014, forthcoming) Europolis and the European Wide Public Sphere: Empirical Explorations of a Counter-Factual Ideal. European Union Politics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forst, Rainer. 2001. The Rule of Reasons: Three Models of Deliberative Democracy. Ratio Juris 14:345–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber Marlène, André Bächtiger, Susumu, Shikano, et al. 2011. The European Deliberative Citizen in Action? Evidence from a Transnational Deliberative Poll (Europolis). Paper presented at the 6th ECPR General Conference, Reykjavik.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 1996. Laundering Preferences. Pp 75–102 in Foundations of Social Choice Theory, edited by Elster, Jon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2005. Sequencing Deliberative Moments. Acta Politica 40 (2):182–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2007. Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and its Alternatives. Philosophy & Public Affairs 35 (1):40–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, Robert E., and Niemeyer, Simon J.. 2003. When does Deliberation Begin? Internal Reflection versus Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy. Political Studies 51 (4):627–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, S. 2010. Naturalisation Policies in Europe: Exploring Patterns of Inclusion and Exclusion. Eudo citizen observatory. Available at http://eudo-citizenship.eu/docs/7-Naturalisation%20Policies%20in%20Europe.pdf (last accessed 15 May 2014).Google Scholar
Gosseries, Axel. 2005. Publicity. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Available from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/publicity/ Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1992. Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechtsund des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Jellison, Jerald M., and Mills, Judson. 1969. Effect of Public Commitment upon Opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 5:340–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpowitz, Christopher F., Mendelberg, Tali and Shaker, Lee. 2012. Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation. American Political Science Review 106:533–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, Jack, and Johnson, James. 2011. The Priority of Democracy: Political Consequences of Pragmatism. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Liker, Jeffrey K., Augustyniak, Sue, and Duncan, Greg J.. 1985. Panel Data and Models of Change: A Comparison of First Difference and Conventional Two-Wave Models. Social Science Research 14:80–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopez-Guerra, Claudio. 2005. Should Expatriates Vote? Journal of Political Philosophy 13 (2):216–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luskin, Robert C., Fishkin, James S., and Hahn, Kyu S.. 2007. Deliberation and Net Attitude Change. ECPR General Conference, Pisa, Italy.Google Scholar
Luskin, Robert C., Fishkin, James S., and Jowell, Roger. 2002. Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science 32 (3):455–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, Gerry. 2006. Does Democratic Deliberation Change Minds? Politics, Philosophy & Economics 5:279–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, David. 2008. National Responsibility and Global Justice. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 11 (4):383–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mucciaroni, Gary, and Quirk, Paul J.. 2006. Deliberative Choices: Debating Public Policy in Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Neblo, Michael. 2007. Change for the Better? Linking the Mechanisms of Deliberative Opinion Change to Normative Theory. Available at polisci.osu.edu/faculty/mneblo/papers/ChangeC4.pdf, accessed 8 January 2012.Google Scholar
Polletta, Francesca, and Lee, John. 2006. Is Telling Stories Good for Democracy? Rhetoric in Public Deliberation after 9/11. American Sociological Review 71:699–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, Henry M. 1951 [1876]. Robert’s Rules of Order, revised edition. Chicago: Scott, Foreman.Google Scholar
Sanders, David. 2012. The Effects of Deliberative Polling in an EU-Wide Experiment: Five Mechanisms in Search of an Explanation. British Journal of Political Science 42 (3):617–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setälä, Maija, Grönlund, Kimmo, and Herne, Kaisa. 2010. Citizen Deliberation on Nuclear Power: A Comparison of Two Decision-Making Methods. Political Studies 58 (4):688–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, Jürg, Bächtiger, André, Spörndli, Markus, and Steenbergen, Marco R.. 2004. Deliberative Politics in Action: Analysing Parliamentary Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stromer-Galley, Jennifer. 2007. Measuring Deliberation’s Content: A Coding Scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation 3 (1):1–35, Article 12. Available at: http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol3/iss1/art12 Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2002. The Law of Group Polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2):175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walzer, Michael. 1984. Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Warren, Mark E., and Pearse, Hilary, eds. 2008. Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Baccaro Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Baccaro Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 155.4 KB