IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/mpifgw/099.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Empirische Deliberationsforschung

Author

Listed:
  • Schaal, Gary S.
  • Ritzi, Claudia

Abstract

Die deliberative Demokratietheorie ist die wichtigste zeitgenössische Demokratietheorie. Das Versprechen der deliberativen Demokratietheorie, die Legitimation und die Qualität politischer Entscheidungen gleichzeitig zu erhöhen, hat dazu geführt, dass auf allen Ebenen des demokratischen Prozesses diskursive Entscheidungsverfahren unterschiedlicher Art implementiert worden sind. Die wichtige Frage lautet jedoch: Können die empirischen Verfahren die theoretischen Versprechungen wirklich einlösen? Die empirische Diskursforschung bietet hier erste Antworten. In dem Papier diskutieren wir einerseits die Herausforderungen, die aus den empirischen Studien für die Theorie resultieren. Andererseits werden die empirischen Studien selbst auf ihre Aussagekraft hin kritisch befragt. Wir argumentieren, dass die geringe Beachtung, die den Gegenständen der Deliberation bislang geschenkt wurde, ein wichtiger Grund für die disparaten Ergebnisse sein kann, die die empirischen Studien zur deliberativen Demokratietheorie bislang hervorgebracht haben. Es wird darauf hingewiesen, dass der Erfolg einer Deliberation wesentlich davon abhängt, ob die Entscheidungsgegenstände als regulative Fragen, Interessenskonflikte oder ethisch-moralische Fragen geframed werden.

Suggested Citation

  • Schaal, Gary S. & Ritzi, Claudia, 2009. "Empirische Deliberationsforschung," MPIfG Working Paper 09/9, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:mpifgw:099
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/41656/1/615284892.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barabas, Jason, 2004. "How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(4), pages 687-701, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Juita-Elena (Wie) Yusuf & Burton St. John & Pragati Rawat & Michelle Covi & Janet Gail Nicula & Carol Considine, 2019. "The Action-oriented Stakeholder Engagement for a Resilient Tomorrow (ASERT) framework: an effective, field-tested approach for engaging stakeholders," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(4), pages 409-418, December.
    2. Meirowitz, Adam, 2005. "Deliberative Democracy or Market Democracy: Designing Institutions to Aggregate Preferences and Information," Papers 03-28-2005, Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy.
    3. George Butler & Gabriella Pigozzi & Juliette Rouchier, 2019. "Mixing Dyadic and Deliberative Opinion Dynamics in an Agent-Based Model of Group Decision-Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-31, August.
    4. Sarkki, Simo & Heikkinen, Hannu I., 2015. "Why do environmentalists not consider compromises as legitimate?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 110-117.
    5. Benjamin A. Lyons, 2019. "Discussion Network Activation: An Expanded Approach to Selective Exposure," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 32-41.
    6. Martina Bavastrelli, 2015. "(English) Democracy and deliberation. Can discussion changes opinions? (Italiano) Democrazia e deliberazione. Discutere fa cambiare opinione?," IRPPS Working Papers 76:2015, National Research Council, Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies.
    7. Schonhardt-Bailey, Cheryl & Dann, Christopher & Chapman, Jacob, 2022. "The accountability gap: deliberation on monetary policy in Britain and America during the financial crisis," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114364, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Andrew G.H. Thompson & Oliver Escobar & Jennifer J. Roberts & Stephen Elstub & Niccole M. Pamphilis, 2021. "The Importance of Context and the Effect of Information and Deliberation on Opinion Change Regarding Environmental Issues in Citizens’ Juries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-21, September.
    9. Sanders James & Lisi Giulio & Schonhardt-Bailey Cheryl, 2017. "Themes and Topics in Parliamentary Oversight Hearings: A New Direction in Textual Data Analysis," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 8(2), pages 153-194, December.
    10. Konow, James, 2008. "The Moral High Ground: An Experimental Study of Spectator Impartiality," MPRA Paper 18558, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Yoshinori Nakagawa & Real Arai & Koji Kotani & Masanobu Nagano & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2018. "Is an intergenerational retrospective viewpoint effective in forming policy preferences for financial sustainability in local and national economies? A deliberative experimental approach," Working Papers SDES-2018-6, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Sep 2018.
    12. Baccaro, Lucio & Simoni, Marco, 2010. "Organizational determinants of wage moderation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 33510, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Martin Lundin & PerOla Öberg, 2014. "Expert knowledge use and deliberation in local policy making," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(1), pages 25-49, March.
    14. Marlène Gerber & André Bächtiger & Irena Fiket & Marco Steenbergen & Jürg Steiner, 2014. "Deliberative and non-deliberative persuasion: Mechanisms of opinion formation in EuroPolis," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(3), pages 410-429, September.
    15. Dimitri Landa & Adam Meirowitz, 2009. "Game Theory, Information, and Deliberative Democracy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 427-444, April.
    16. Daniele Archibugi & Martina Bavastrelli & Marco Cellini, 2018. "Does discussion lead to opinion change? An experiment in deliberative democracy," Management Working Papers 14, Birkbeck Department of Management, revised Feb 2021.
    17. Kevin M. Warsh, 2016. "Institutional Design: Deliberations, Decisions, and Committee Dynamics," Book Chapters,in: John H. Cochrane & John B. Taylor (ed.), Central Bank Governance & Oversight Reforminancial Crisis, chapter 4 Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
    18. Eric Groenendyk & Yanna Krupnikov, 2021. "What Motivates Reasoning? A Theory of Goal‐Dependent Political Evaluation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 180-196, January.
    19. Schonhardt-Bailey, Cheryl & Dann, Christopher & Chapman, Jacob, 2022. "The accountability gap: Deliberation on monetary policy in Britain and America during the financial crisis," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    20. Klara Pigmans & Huib Aldewereld & Virginia Dignum & Neelke Doorn, 2019. "The Role of Value Deliberation to Improve Stakeholder Participation in Issues of Water Governance," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 33(12), pages 4067-4085, September.

    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:zbw:mpifgw:099. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mpigfde.html .

    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.