The Future of Deliberative Democratic Theory and Practice.

The Frontiers of Deliberative Democratic Theory and Practice John Gastil Department of Communication Presentation at the University of Washington February 21, 2007

Research Program Overview
Core theoretical focus: understanding democracy and deliberation
Large, networked research team
Individual essays and studies investigating specific questions
Growing body of scholarship

Deliberative Democratic Theory

Principal Collaborators
UW graduate students
Stephanie Burkhalter
Todd Kelshaw
Laura Black
Mike Xenos
Students in COM 417 & 555
Other co-authors
Bill Keith (U Wisc-Milwaukee)
Jane Mansbridge (Harvard U)
Patricia Moy (U Washington)

Deliberation Scholarship 1990 1995 2000 2006 “ Deliberation” (with “Civic/Citizen/Political/Public”) in Peer-Reviewed Articles in Expanded Academic Index

Conceptions of Deliberation Political Communication and Deliberation John Gastil

Local/Global Public Discourse and Action Media Informal Networking and Political Conversation Public Meetings Elections Legislature Judiciary Juries Public Education Cultural Expression Organizational Meetings International Bodies Social Movements Public Officials & Institutions Individual Citizens Civil Society Associations Executive & Agencies Deliberative Contexts

Broad Conception of Deliberation
Analytic
Create a solid information base
Prioritize the key values at stake
Identify a broad range of solutions
Weigh solution pros, cons, and tradeoffs
Social Process
Adequately distribute speaking opportunities
Ensure mutual comprehension
Consider other ideas and experiences
Respect other participants

Meanings Across Contexts
Discussion/conversation: Discuss personal and emotional experiences, as well as general information.
Electoral process: Provide readily-accessible and relevant information about issues and candidates.
Government (agenda setting): Maintain a reliable and broad research base that can identify emerging social, economic, and environmental problems.
Jury: Consider only the evidence/testimony provided during the trial. Avoid adding personal experiences.

Meanings Across Contexts
Discussion/conversation: Discuss personal and emotional experiences, as well as general information.
Electoral process : Provide readily-accessible and relevant information about issues and candidates.
Government (agenda setting): Maintain a reliable and broad research base that can identify emerging social, economic, and environmental problems.
Jury : Consider only the evidence/testimony provided during the trial. Avoid adding personal experiences.

Civic Impact of Deliberation

Co-principal investigators
Perry Deess, Institutional Research, NJIT
Phil Weiser, School of Law, U Colorado-Boulder
Graduate student co-authors
Jay Leighter, Laura Black, Stephanie Burkhalter, Mike Xenos, Leah Sprain, Andrea Hickerson.
Undergraduate co-authors
Tina Gall (volunteer, employee, co-author)
Jordan Larner (senior thesis)
Other co-authors
Hiroshi Fukurai, Kent Jennings, Mark Nolan, Cynthia Simmons

Overivew
Theoretical significance of the research project
National study of jury service and voting
King County panel survey assessing effects beyond voting

Theoretical Background
The participation hypothesis
Democratic participation promotes future civic engagement
Focus on deliberative activities
A taken-for-granted assumption
Deliberative forums
U.S. Supreme Court
Japanese “lay assessor” system

Recommendations of the Justice System
Reform Council, June 12, 2001
“In Japanese society of the 21st century, it is incumbent on the people to break out of the excessive dependency of the state that accompanies the traditional consciousness of being governed objects, develop public consciousness within themselves, and become more actively involved in public affairs.”
Theoretical Background

Research Sites

Sample List of Jury Trials

Sample List of Jurors for a Trial

County Voter Database

Merging Databases JURORS VOTERS 65% match rate

Ideal Test
Ideal study sample
Large sample (N = 13,237)
Reluctant participants (summons)
Clear effects
Long-term effects (5 yrs pre/post)
Distinct behaviors (jury vs. voting)
Valid and reliable measures
Direct measures of behavior (jury/voting)
Low measurement error (public records)

Jury Service Measures
Deliberative experience on jury
Comparison group: Mistrial before beginning jury deliberation
Other outcomes: Guilty plea, alternate, hung, reached a verdict
Additional trial features
Number and nature of charges
Duration of trial and jury deliberation

Results for Infrequent Voters Serving on Criminal Juries b 1,390 .128 Totals df R 2 .061** .013 (.01) Number of Charges .021 .019 (.04) Guilty Plea vs. Mistrial .022 .022 (.04) Alternate vs. Mistrial .063** .068 (.04) Hung Jury vs. Mistrial .076* .043 (.03) Verdict vs. Mistrial .273*** .640 (.06) Pre-Jury Voting Avg. B (SE) Predictors of Post-Jury Voting

King County Panel Survey
Three-wave survey
Wave 1: Before serving (baseline measures)
Wave 2: After service (subjective experience)
Wave 3: Follow-up (behavior changes)
Replication of national survey
Again finds deliberation-voting link
Partial mediation by “subjective experience”
Additional effects linked to experience

King County Survey: Effects Beyond Voting *Political knowledge, demographics, and other variables partialled out. < .001 .118 Follow politics/public issues .041 .060 Attend political events .036 .063 Talk politics (to persuade) .029 .066 Listen to news .010 .081 Interest in local affairs .006 .086 Political group involvement .003 .095 Discuss community issues .003 .096 Talk politics (to learn) .003 .096 Political volunteer work p Partial* r Correlations w/ Experience

Broader Implications of Findings
Beyond the jury
Deliberative public meetings
Importance of consequential deliberation
Jury system in the U.S.
Preserving the jury system
Improving the service experience
International implications
South Africa, Eastern Europe, Mexico
South Korea and Japan

Deliberation in Initiative Elections

UW graduate students
Justin Reedy
Chris Wells
Carolyn Lee
Other UW co-authors
Mark Forehand
Mark Smith
Cynthia Simmons

Signs of Low Voter Knowledge
Confusion about the initiative itself
Failure to weigh key arguments
Systematic misperception of relevant facts

Confusion about the Initiative I-841 (WA-2003) repealed a state regulation that aimed to reduce the frequency of ergonomics-related workplace injuries. 100% 100% 100% Total 49% 81% 73% Not sure 46% 18% 11% Repeal the reg. 4% 2% 16% Enact the regulation Not Sure Voting Against Voting For Believed the initiative would…

Voter recall of I-841 pros/cons
Reinforcing existing bias
90% of proponents were able to give a pro argument, and 90% of opponents could offer a con
Not hearing the other side
Fewer than 50% of either group were able to name an argument advanced by the other side
Failure to Weigh Key Arguments

Systematic Misperception
I-920 (WA-2006) would have repealed the Washington estate tax.
Did voters know who was subject to the tax?

Systematic Misperception % believe they are not % who know farms/ranches are exempt % unsure

Directional Misperception
Definition: holding empirical beliefs consistent with preexisting policy attitudes
Predictors: voters with endorsement knowledge link attitudes with empirical beliefs
Effects: voters with endorsement knowledge have independent effects for both anti-regulation attitudes and directional misperception
Current research

Citizens Initiative Review

Citizens’ Assembly

www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca

http://www.cirwa.org

Champions of Citizens Initiative Review
Ned Crosby (founder of Citizen Jury process)
Pat Benn
Paul Becker

Evaluation Research Team
Don A. Dillman, Washington State
Todd Donovan, Western Washington
Laura Evans, U Washington
Carolyn N. Long, Washington State
Nicholas Lovrich, Washington State
Matthew Manweller, Central Washington
Patricia Moy, U Washington
Travis Ridout, Washington State
Todd Schaefer, Central Washington
Mark Smith, U Washington
Michael Treleaven, Gonzaga

Evaluation Research Team
Don A. Dillman, Washington State
Todd Donovan, Western Washington
Laura Evans , U Washington
Carolyn N. Long, Washington State
Nicholas Lovrich, Washington State
Matthew Manweller, Central Washington
Patricia Moy , U Washington
Travis Ridout, Washington State
Todd Schaefer, Central Washington
Mark Smith , U Washington
Michael Treleaven, Gonzaga

The CIR Concept
“ One proposal being considered for state law would establish independent panels of Washington citizens to provide voters with more reliable information about initiatives. Each panel would consist of a cross-section of Washington citizens, who would spend a full week hearing testimony and deliberating on the merits of each initiative. The Secretary of State would publish the citizens' final reports in the Voters Pamphlet, and the panel proceedings would be made available online.”

Do voters support the CIR? SURVEY QUESTION: If a vote to adopt this measure were taken today, would you support it or oppose it?

Total Support 72% Dem. 69% GOP 70% Indep. Strong Yes Yes No Strong No Don’t Know Do voters support the CIR?

Design of the CIR
Independent Commission located in the legislative branch
12-member oversight board
6 former CIR panelists
3 former CIR moderators
3 appointments by Secretary of State, Atty. General, and Governor
Board appoints Executive Director

Design Structure of the CIR
Review and Assessment
Citizen and moderators evaluate each year’s panels
Annual evaluation measures the impact and utility of CIR

Typical Review Panel Week
Day 1: Orientation and presentations by neutral witnesses
Days 2-3: Pro and con testimony, cross-examination, and deliberation
Day 4: Panel deliberation and critical feedback
Day 5: Final panel statement

CIR Legislation

Political Context
Democrats control both legislative bodies in Washington
House: 63D to 45R
Senate: 32D to 17R
Bi-partisan support
Still mostly Democratic
A few Republican supporters lost their seats in 2006

Current Status of CIR Bill
Prospects for 2007 Passage
Must be sent out of committee by the end of February
Passage required in at least one body by March 14
If unsuccessful with legislature
Return in 2008
Oregon, Colorado, California

Potential Benefits of CIR
Critical Goals
Reaching Sound Judgments [analysis of panel deliberations]
Producing Influential Information [election result analysis]
Additional Potential Benefits
Transforming Public Knowledge, Attitudes, and Habits [survey research]
Influencing Public Officials [interviews with officials; legislative analysis]
Altering Strategic Political Choices [field research on campaign organizations]

Conclusions
Broadened conception of deliberation reveals new areas for theory/research
Power of jury service within and beyond the American context
Limited deliberation in initiative elections
Deliberative reforms with electoral relevance
Invitation to students and faculty to join the deliberation research team

The Future of Deliberative Democratic Theory and Practice.

by Kathy Gill on Feb 27, 2007

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 1

Statistics

The Future of Deliberative Democratic Theory and Practice. — Presentation Transcript