Evaluating Public Deliberation: Including the Audience Perspective

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Standard

Evaluating Public Deliberation : Including the Audience Perspective. / Kock, Christian Erik J.

I: journal of deliberative democracy, Bind 17, Nr. 2, 2021, s. 45-56.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Harvard

Kock, CEJ 2021, 'Evaluating Public Deliberation: Including the Audience Perspective', journal of deliberative democracy, bind 17, nr. 2, s. 45-56. https://doi.org/10.16997/10.16997/jdd.945

APA

Kock, C. E. J. (2021). Evaluating Public Deliberation: Including the Audience Perspective. journal of deliberative democracy, 17(2), 45-56. https://doi.org/10.16997/10.16997/jdd.945

Vancouver

Kock CEJ. Evaluating Public Deliberation: Including the Audience Perspective. journal of deliberative democracy. 2021;17(2):45-56. https://doi.org/10.16997/10.16997/jdd.945

Author

Kock, Christian Erik J. / Evaluating Public Deliberation : Including the Audience Perspective. I: journal of deliberative democracy. 2021 ; Bind 17, Nr. 2. s. 45-56.

Bibtex

@article{d9c7cee90b114a02ae3a45ba99756eeb,
title = "Evaluating Public Deliberation: Including the Audience Perspective",
abstract = "I argue that in evaluating public deliberation, the basic criterion should be how deliberating citizens{\textquoteright} need for usable input is met, rather than how the debaters embody Habermasian consensus-oriented ideals, and I question assessment of “deliberative quality” on that basis, such as the “Discourse Quality Index.” Studies of public deliberation should instead build on an Aristotelian notion of deliberation, on Rawls{\textquoteright}s idea of “reasonable disagreement” and on the deliberating audience{\textquoteright}s needs. To explore these, we need real-time studies of audience reception of public deliberation. I place the studies I call for in a typology of studies, present a study with novel methodological features and discuss its implications for criteria for public deliberation.",
author = "Kock, {Christian Erik J}",
year = "2021",
doi = "10.16997/10.16997/jdd.945",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "45--56",
journal = "journal of deliberative democracy",
issn = "2634-0488",
publisher = "University of Westminster Press",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating Public Deliberation

T2 - Including the Audience Perspective

AU - Kock, Christian Erik J

PY - 2021

Y1 - 2021

N2 - I argue that in evaluating public deliberation, the basic criterion should be how deliberating citizens’ need for usable input is met, rather than how the debaters embody Habermasian consensus-oriented ideals, and I question assessment of “deliberative quality” on that basis, such as the “Discourse Quality Index.” Studies of public deliberation should instead build on an Aristotelian notion of deliberation, on Rawls’s idea of “reasonable disagreement” and on the deliberating audience’s needs. To explore these, we need real-time studies of audience reception of public deliberation. I place the studies I call for in a typology of studies, present a study with novel methodological features and discuss its implications for criteria for public deliberation.

AB - I argue that in evaluating public deliberation, the basic criterion should be how deliberating citizens’ need for usable input is met, rather than how the debaters embody Habermasian consensus-oriented ideals, and I question assessment of “deliberative quality” on that basis, such as the “Discourse Quality Index.” Studies of public deliberation should instead build on an Aristotelian notion of deliberation, on Rawls’s idea of “reasonable disagreement” and on the deliberating audience’s needs. To explore these, we need real-time studies of audience reception of public deliberation. I place the studies I call for in a typology of studies, present a study with novel methodological features and discuss its implications for criteria for public deliberation.

U2 - 10.16997/10.16997/jdd.945

DO - 10.16997/10.16997/jdd.945

M3 - Journal article

VL - 17

SP - 45

EP - 56

JO - journal of deliberative democracy

JF - journal of deliberative democracy

SN - 2634-0488

IS - 2

ER -

ID: 272242349