Why and how to compare deliberative systems
Why and how to compare deliberative systems
复制标题
为什么以及如何比较协商制度
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Corbett
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
John Boswell;J. Corbett
协商民主理论的系统转向给这一领域的实证研究者提出了一个问题。审议系统在本质上是复杂的、多孔的和不断变化的。现有的衡量审议和民主质量的工具无法充分评估这些特征。这些品质只有在与其他系统的做法相比较时才变得明显。有意义的分析依赖于比较。然而，在转向比较政治学文献的启发，我们警告说，这一子领域的两个主要传统-严格的系统比较或厚厚的描述性区域研究-只有有限的效用。一方面，严格的比较分析将不恰当地反映在系统性账户上。另一方面，有必要超越在厚厚的描述中产生的具体说明。相反，本文强调了两种替代传统在比较政治分析中的价值。第一种是通过在比较研究设计中使用“家庭相似性”。第二种是通过事后比较，将系统之间的折衷亲和力结合在一起。这两种方法都是敏感的审议系统在实践中的背景复杂性。两者都可以告诉我们很多关于审议实践和机构为什么以及如何出现、繁荣或失败，以及它们如何促进、加强或破坏整个系统的民主和审议质量。本文借鉴了这两种方法的有前途的例子，强调他们在实践中理解审议系统的价值。
The systemic turn in deliberative democratic theory presents empirical researchers in this field with a problem. Deliberative systems are complex, porous and shifting in nature. These features cannot be adequately assessed by existing tools for measuring deliberative and democratic qualities. Such qualities only become apparent when set against practices in other systems. Meaningful analysis rests on comparison. However, in turning to the comparative politics literature for inspiration, we caution that the two dominant traditions in this subfield – rigidly systematic comparison or thickly descriptive area studies – are of only limited utility. On the one hand, rigid comparative analysis will map uncomfortably on the systemic account. On the other, there is a need to move beyond idiographic accounts produced in thick descriptions. Instead, this article emphasises the value of two alternative traditions in comparative political analysis. The first is through the use of ‘family resemblances’ in comparative research design. The second is through post hoc comparisons that draw together eclectic affinities between systems. Both approaches are sensitive to the contextual complexities of deliberative systems in practice. Both can tell us a great deal about why and how deliberative practices and institutions emerge, flourish or fail, and how they enable, enhance or undermine the democratic and deliberative qualities of the system overall. This article draws on promising examples of these two approaches to emphasise their value in understanding deliberative systems in practice.