The lessons and limitations of experiments in democratic deliberation

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Experiments are essential to the practice of democratic deliberation, which itself is an experimental remedy to the problem of self-governance. This field, however, is constrained by the impossibility of conducting ecologically valid experiments that take into account the full complexity of deliberative theory, which spans different levels of analysis and has a multidimensional variable at its core. Nonetheless, informative patterns have emerged from the dozens of lab studies, survey experiments, and quasi-experiments in the field conducted to date. This body of work shows the feasibility of gathering diverse samples of people to deliberate, but it also underscores the difficulties that arise in deliberation, including extreme disagreement, poor conflict management, and how a lack of diversity can forestall meaningful disagreement. When public engagement strategies and discussion formats mitigate those hazards, deliberation can improve participants' understanding of issues, sharpen their judgments, and change their attitudes toward civic engagement. Well-publicized deliberative minipublics can even influence wider public opinion and voting intentions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)271-291
Number of pages21
JournalAnnual Review of Law and Social Science
Volume14
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 13 2018

Fingerprint

deliberation
experiment
conflict management
attitude change
remedies
public opinion
voting
governance
lack

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Law

Cite this

@article{649a79283710418db25c3c44f2fa7333,
title = "The lessons and limitations of experiments in democratic deliberation",
abstract = "Experiments are essential to the practice of democratic deliberation, which itself is an experimental remedy to the problem of self-governance. This field, however, is constrained by the impossibility of conducting ecologically valid experiments that take into account the full complexity of deliberative theory, which spans different levels of analysis and has a multidimensional variable at its core. Nonetheless, informative patterns have emerged from the dozens of lab studies, survey experiments, and quasi-experiments in the field conducted to date. This body of work shows the feasibility of gathering diverse samples of people to deliberate, but it also underscores the difficulties that arise in deliberation, including extreme disagreement, poor conflict management, and how a lack of diversity can forestall meaningful disagreement. When public engagement strategies and discussion formats mitigate those hazards, deliberation can improve participants' understanding of issues, sharpen their judgments, and change their attitudes toward civic engagement. Well-publicized deliberative minipublics can even influence wider public opinion and voting intentions.",
author = "Gastil, {John W.}",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
day = "13",
doi = "10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113639",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "271--291",
journal = "Annual Review of Law and Social Science",
issn = "1550-3585",
publisher = "Annual Reviews Inc.",

}

The lessons and limitations of experiments in democratic deliberation. / Gastil, John W.

In: Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Vol. 14, 13.10.2018, p. 271-291.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - The lessons and limitations of experiments in democratic deliberation

AU - Gastil, John W.

PY - 2018/10/13

Y1 - 2018/10/13

N2 - Experiments are essential to the practice of democratic deliberation, which itself is an experimental remedy to the problem of self-governance. This field, however, is constrained by the impossibility of conducting ecologically valid experiments that take into account the full complexity of deliberative theory, which spans different levels of analysis and has a multidimensional variable at its core. Nonetheless, informative patterns have emerged from the dozens of lab studies, survey experiments, and quasi-experiments in the field conducted to date. This body of work shows the feasibility of gathering diverse samples of people to deliberate, but it also underscores the difficulties that arise in deliberation, including extreme disagreement, poor conflict management, and how a lack of diversity can forestall meaningful disagreement. When public engagement strategies and discussion formats mitigate those hazards, deliberation can improve participants' understanding of issues, sharpen their judgments, and change their attitudes toward civic engagement. Well-publicized deliberative minipublics can even influence wider public opinion and voting intentions.

AB - Experiments are essential to the practice of democratic deliberation, which itself is an experimental remedy to the problem of self-governance. This field, however, is constrained by the impossibility of conducting ecologically valid experiments that take into account the full complexity of deliberative theory, which spans different levels of analysis and has a multidimensional variable at its core. Nonetheless, informative patterns have emerged from the dozens of lab studies, survey experiments, and quasi-experiments in the field conducted to date. This body of work shows the feasibility of gathering diverse samples of people to deliberate, but it also underscores the difficulties that arise in deliberation, including extreme disagreement, poor conflict management, and how a lack of diversity can forestall meaningful disagreement. When public engagement strategies and discussion formats mitigate those hazards, deliberation can improve participants' understanding of issues, sharpen their judgments, and change their attitudes toward civic engagement. Well-publicized deliberative minipublics can even influence wider public opinion and voting intentions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85055008007&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85055008007&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113639

DO - 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113639

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85055008007

VL - 14

SP - 271

EP - 291

JO - Annual Review of Law and Social Science

JF - Annual Review of Law and Social Science

SN - 1550-3585

ER -