Unveiling the Characteristics of Political Institutions_ A Comprehensive Anal...
The Future of Deliberative Democratic Theory and Practice.
1. The Frontiers of Deliberative
Democratic Theory and Practice
John Gastil
Department of Communication
Presentation at the
University of
Washington
February 21, 2007
2. 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
5. 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)
8. Local/Global
Public Discourse
and ActionMedia
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
9. 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
10. Meanings Across Contexts
Create a solid information base
• 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.
11. Meanings Across Contexts
Create a solid information base
• 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.
13. Principal Collaborators
• 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
14. Overivew
• Theoretical significance
of the research project
• National study of jury service
and voting
• King County panel survey
assessing effects beyond voting
15. 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
16. 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
22. 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)
23. 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
24. Results for Infrequent Voters
Serving on Criminal Juries
Predictors of
Post-Jury Voting B (SE)
Pre-Jury Voting Avg. .640 (.06) .273***
Verdict vs. Mistrial .043 (.03) .076*
Hung Jury vs. Mistrial .068 (.04) .063**
Alternate vs. Mistrial .022 (.04) .022
Guilty Plea vs. Mistrial .019 (.04) .021
Number of Charges .013 (.01) .061**
R2
df
Totals .128 1,390
b
25. 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
26. Correlations w/ Experience Partial* r p
Follow politics/public issues .118 < .001
Political volunteer work .096 .003
Talk politics (to learn) .096 .003
Discuss community issues .095 .003
Political group involvement .086 .006
Interest in local affairs .081 .010
Listen to news .066 .029
Talk politics (to persuade) .063 .036
Attend political events .060 .041
King County Survey:
Effects Beyond Voting
*Political knowledge, demographics, and other variables partialled out.
27. 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
29. Principal Collaborators
• UW graduate students
– Justin Reedy
– Chris Wells
– Carolyn Lee
• Other UW co-authors
– Mark Forehand
– Mark Smith
– Cynthia Simmons
30. Signs of Low Voter Knowledge
• Confusion about the
initiative itself
• Failure to weigh key arguments
• Systematic misperception of
relevant facts
31. Confusion about the Initiative
Believed the
initiative would…
Voting
For
Voting
Against
Not
Sure
Enact the regulation 16% 2% 4%
Repeal the reg. 11% 18% 46%
Not sure 73% 81% 49%
Total 100% 100% 100%
I-841 (WA-2003) repealed a state regulation
that aimed to reduce the frequency of
ergonomics-related workplace injuries.
32. Confusion about the Initiative
Believed the
initiative would…
Voting
For
Voting
Against
Not
Sure
Enact the regulation 16% 2% 4%
Repeal the reg. 11% 18% 46%
Not sure 73% 81% 49%
Total 100% 100% 100%
I-841 (WA-2003) repealed a state regulation
that aimed to reduce the frequency of
ergonomics-related workplace injuries.
33. 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
36. 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
42. Principal Collaborators
• 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
43. Principal Collaborators
• 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
44. 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.”
45. Do voters support the CIR?
SURVEY QUESTION:
If a vote to adopt this
measure were taken today,
would you support it or
oppose it?
46. Total Support
72% Dem.
69% GOP
70% Indep.
Strong
Yes
Yes No Strong
No
Don’t
Know
Do voters support the CIR?
47. 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
48. 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
49. 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
51. 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
52.
53.
54. 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
55. 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]
56.
57. 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
Hinweis der Redaktion
A shorthand definition of deliberation:
When people deliberate, they carefully examine a problem and a range of solutions through an open, inclusive discussion that respects diverse points of view.
Deliberative Democratic Theory
Rise of deliberation as a subject of study
Broadened understanding of deliberation
The Civic Impact of Jury Deliberation
Research on jury deliberation
Deliberation and civic infrastructure
Voter Knowledge in Initiative Elections
The Citizens Initiative Review
Goal of book: to integrate pol comm and deliberation
When understood in broad terms, deliberation is the central concept underlying a broad range of empirical research topics and moral questions raised in political communication scholarship—from how media framing can constrain public discussion, to how partisan pressures warp Congressional debates, to how political conversations can change how people think about candidates. Deliberation provides a unifying conceptual and critical framework within which one can better organize and understand the large array of political communication topics.
Championing: to protect or fight for as a champion
Championing: to protect or fight for as a champion
Championing: to protect or fight for as a champion
Forums: NIF
US Supreme Court: Powers v. Ohio
Japan: go to next slide
Transition: Does it have this effect? Thurston County pilot published in 2002 says “yes”. But we looked nationally.
Current research: replicating and extending this study to 2006 initiatives
Key Co-sponsors in House
Chair and all Dems. on State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee
Vice Chair of Appropriations Committee
Key Co-sponsors in Senate
Chair of Government Operations and Elections Committee
Chair of Ways and Means Committee