IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v100y2019i6p2168-2187.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Emotions and Deliberation in the Citizens’ Initiative Review

Author

Listed:
  • Genevieve Fuji Johnson
  • Michael E. Morrell
  • Laura W. Black

Abstract

Objective Emotions in deliberative democratic practices have been of interest to researchers and practitioners of democracy for years. Yet, scholars have not fully analyzed emotions in this context. We advance this discussion in terms of both data collection and analysis with respect to Citizens' Initiative Reviews (CIRs) in Arizona, Oregon, and Massachusetts in 2016. We respond to four central research questions: (1) What discrete emotions do participants report experiencing during mini‐public deliberation? (2) How do the reported emotions vary across the period of deliberation? (3) How do the expressed emotions affect the deliberation? and (4) What work do expressed emotions do in mini‐publics in terms of helping or hindering deliberation? Methods To ensure a comprehensive analysis of the data we were able to collect, we employ a mixed‐methods design and use both quantitative and qualitative methods. Results and Conclusion Ultimately, we contend that the activities and tasks of the group, as well as the behaviors of participants and relationships among them, are all important factors that shape how people experience emotion, but that the CIR procedures have the greatest influence in mediating emotions to serve the ends of deliberation in these mini‐publics.

Suggested Citation

  • Genevieve Fuji Johnson & Michael E. Morrell & Laura W. Black, 2019. "Emotions and Deliberation in the Citizens’ Initiative Review," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 100(6), pages 2168-2187, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:100:y:2019:i:6:p:2168-2187
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12707
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12707
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12707?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:100:y:2019:i:6:p:2168-2187. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.